Read an article with some dude speculating who would be booted first if the BIG tried to form a super conference. 1st - Rutgers, 2nd - Northwestern and 3rd - Indiana. I’m just glad we were third on that list.
Would they really kick us out?
- Thread starter Hoosiervannah
- Start date
No
And we would not be in the top 7 on that list...if there was such a thing.
Two folks push that here and one is not an IU fan.
I’m expecting IU to be removed eventually. The time frame I’d guess is between 5-10 years. My guess is we go to a hybrid conference setup with football moving to some G5 conference and basketball playing games in the traditional conference. This will gain steam as the eventual disproportionate distribution of media rights money comes into play. When that does come into play, which I think it will, watch some movement start to happen. I look for IU to be in the AAC (not ACC) or the Sunbelt.
What could prevent this if we get a new staff who gets us rolling.
Guessing it won't get to kicking anyone out. But I could see the top 30 ish schools banding together and creating an NFL like revenue/TV contract sharing, "Champions League"...some day.
OSU
Michigan
Penn State
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Georgia
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida
Florida State
LSU
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Clemson
Miami
Texas A&M
Probably some more west coast teams
New York/New England based teams maybe
Conferences for other sports will gravitate back to what they were 10ish years ago.
Dan Olinger - interesting comments. Talked about Temple getting voted out of BigEast some years ago.
Hey….I’m not asking for it to happen. I’d hate to see it happen with all my heart but I believe we are in an age of adapt and survive. I question IU’s ability to adapt as the conference looks to expand and potentially replace low performers (IU) with other schools with a better brand.
You can get upset all you want. I would never want to see it happen, and I hope it never comes to that. There’s just been way too much evolution in the environment now with things changing at a rapid pace that nothing is off the table at this point. A few short years ago, I’d say no way it ever happens but the “rules” and “norms” are being rewritten seemingly daily.
As another poster said, it may not be a “kicked out” scenario but could be like a Pac12 situation where a bunch of teams exit to create a new alignment and the remainder are left to cobble together other schools to maintain a Big Ten conference or find new alternatives.
I’m not promoting this whole thing. I just think it will come to fruition eventually based on the evolution of the college football world.
I know you don’t like to hear this but don’t shoot the messenger. I just think there are some red flags that fans cannot ignore.
You promote the concept here on a daily basis.
Not upset in the least, I just laugh at you guys
"I'm not promoting this whole thing". You should be banished from all IU boards for typing those words.
Not a chance, as I’ve repeatedly said. We certainly need better leadership to always ensure our place at the table, but we aren’t going anywhere (and there’s no effort even contemplated to do this for any conference member). Even the casual fans here should understand this.
A change in how revenue is shared? Don’t be surprised if this finds its way into the discussion at some point, however.
Last edited:
A change in how revenue is shared, especially if the B10 football
schools continue to win the B10 basketball championship.
Well I’m glad the consensus is that it won’t happen. I’m 100% seriously thinking of moving back to retire in the Bloomington area to enjoy some BigTen football and basketball among the other things that IU has to offer. I would be pissed if I did that and had to watch us play in the MAC until I died 
!
!Yeah, our status as a non-football school isn’t helpful, but we’ve done it to ourselves with our last several ADs. But revenue sharing issues between schools, as well as between schools and SAs, are inevitable.
The writer was Dan Olinger, right?.... No 20-something who JUST graduate this year from college has ANY first-hand knowledge of what he's talking about.... And, I'll bet any amount of money he has yet to develop any important contacts within college sports....
He's probably been reading a few speculative articles from a couple of national journalists whose specialty is to "throw some sh*t against the wall and hope something sticks."... Ninety percent of the time their crap never comes to fruition... He references Temple but he had to have been about 4 years old when it happened and based on that alone he knows nothing of the context, again, other than what he's read.
Nothing will really change for at least the next 5 years or more, mainly because there are far too many contracts in place... to allow it to happen. For anyone to make a prediction beyond 5-years is only fooling themselves to think they have any clue. Today's world changes far to quickly for anyone to make predictions that far out.
And, no I don't see IU being voted out of the B1G or any school for that matter. The real scenario is Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State... or even Nebraska... leaving the B1G for what they think are greener pastures but I would won't put good odds on it happening....
And, If Nebraska would leave it would be because they're sore losers. Besides, since joining I think Nebraska's value has actually dropped in the eyes of other P5 teams and the media.... If by miracle they're dumb enough to drop out they won't be going anywhere that will make them more money than they're making now.
Last edited:
I'm saying it can't or won't..
But with the changes coming next yr.
I'd think its past another decade...
But with the changes coming next yr.
I'd think its past another decade...
I think our TV ratings are enough to keep us in. We have a national following.
And what would be the objective of a super conference? To lock up all 12 playoff spots? I am happy to see the Pac-12 doing well this year. It sort of smites all this lunacy. I also was thinking, it's really not about the conference. USC will be USC even if they're in the ACC. That said, we had some odd arrangements even before this year. For instance, Rutgers is in the Big Ten but the ACC would have made more sense (although I know it was for the New York TV audience). Maryland left the ACC, although I think they were a founding member. Missouri should be in the Big Ten and not in the SEC. Nebraska, eh, close enough to Big Ten country, and all that corn makes it Midwestern. The Pac-12 just didn't have the TV money, but if you look at that conference, although it hasn't done well in the playoffs, there are some loaded teams out there. USC, Oregon, Oregon State, UCLA, Utah, Washington, Washington State, and now Colorado is a national contender. And these teams will only get better in time. They also do well interconference. Anyway, I think everyone could have stayed in their conferences and just had some Power 5 nonconference rotating schedule, a game or two each season. But that probably still wouldn't be enough TV money.
Hey - do you like seeing IU as perennial punching bag in tbe conference? You actually don’t care one way or another since you are basketball first (which is basically a middle of the pack program now anyway).
Bottom line: IU needs to act like a Big10 program and get serious or it puts itself in a target sight.
I think you misunderstood the term “promoting.”
I don’t endorse it. Would hate to see it happen but I do believe if things continue the way they are that IU could be at risk.
Depends on who we play. The opener against Ohio State was the top game in the country that day. And I don't think it was only because of Ohio State.
TODD AARON GOLDEN: Safe for now, how long will IU, Purdue stay realignment-proof?
The future is currently bright for Indiana, Purdue and the Big Ten's traditional schools in the realignment chess match, but will it stay that way forever? Todd Golden wonders how
I think saying "IU could be at risk" is a reasonable statement but IMO that statement is a LONG way from your original post in this thread that stated...
"I’m expecting IU to be removed eventually."
Promoting it? Ehh maybe, maybe not but you have been beating this drum for a LONG time. Many of those threads had nothing to do with BT members being removed.
The writer isn’t wrong that this is football driven and that we don’t command a large market media presence, but the conference isn’t expanding so that it can then contract. As I’ve said, revenue sharing protocols might change, both among schools and with athletes. And the scheduling that always seems to be a matter of debate will increasingly feel the influence of television, and not just in terms of start times. Television is going to start dictating who plays whom, and when so that they can have high profile games every weekend. It won’t be the end of snacking on cupcakes, but TV isn’t going to permit weekends like the one we just had (with basically no marquee games). They foot the bill for this stuff and they’re going to demand a big say n who plays whom. We need to wake up to the reality that football must move to the top of our priority list.TODD AARON GOLDEN: Safe for now, how long will IU, Purdue stay realignment-proof?
The future is currently bright for Indiana, Purdue and the Big Ten's traditional schools in the realignment chess match, but will it stay that way forever? Todd Golden wonders howwww.tribstar.com
at this point nothing would surprise me. i've seen things in the last few years i never thought i'd live to see.
Every conference needs a patsie to give teams that extra bye week.
SEC has Vandy and the ACC has GT and BC.
Besides that,who would OSU play in their annual preseason scrimmage?
SEC has Vandy and the ACC has GT and BC.
Besides that,who would OSU play in their annual preseason scrimmage?
No doubt we’re in strange times, but I do think scheduling is the next frontier for television, which is why the days of being able to stack out of conference slates with pushovers may be in some jeopardy. Too much money on the table to have weekends without eyeball drawing games, and too much scrutiny on low profile games that no one will want to watch. The flex scheduling in the NFL seems unlikely for colleges, but no one believed Stanford and Cal would be in the ACC one day, either.
The way the economy is going, I wont care what conference IU is in because I wont be able to afford watching college sports! Inflation is ruining everything for me! Cant afford to go to games and cant afford to watch them on TV, I can barely afford to keep a roof over my head and food on my table ffs! Prices are increasing everywhere and my income isnt! Maybe it’ll all improve once that old crooked buzzard is out of office, but if the B10 keeps increasing it’s size, the $$$ for tickets/tv, etc will keep going up!
College football/basketball has turned into a monopoly, which will soon turn into minor league/semi-pro orgs! I can see football and basketball splitting off from NCAA academics and creating their own athletic non-student organizations! Some schools may choose to keep both students and athletes and form smaller leagues, but to lower level athletic standards! I think IU can make enough revenue to separate the student from the athlete especially in basketball, but IU football could take a big hit!
College football/basketball has turned into a monopoly, which will soon turn into minor league/semi-pro orgs! I can see football and basketball splitting off from NCAA academics and creating their own athletic non-student organizations! Some schools may choose to keep both students and athletes and form smaller leagues, but to lower level athletic standards! I think IU can make enough revenue to separate the student from the athlete especially in basketball, but IU football could take a big hit!
And THAT more than anything will impact how everything goes going forward. Right now it is a very large pie, but if everyone and their brother starts getting a piece of it (and I believe that through the courts everyone will) it will make a lot of schools rethink the entire process as the risk/reward get farther apart.
Sort of like finding a way to interject politics religion or past ADs into conversations where there is no relevance
I agree and I have posted for a long time and others have picked up on…we are likely to see collective bargaining and reworked revenue sharing before too long.
Your analysis is correct. IU made the determination years ago to be a basketball first and football a distant second school. Kansas was for many years the same; so was Kentucky. In each of these schools, the basketball coach was paid much more than the football coach; that is not the standard situation. (I realize that at present it is not the situation at IU but for many years it was.) Kansas and Kentucky have tried to change that with positive results so far.
The evolution of sports has led to increased emphasis on football driven primarily by media television contracts with conferences. Within conferences, the football "big dogs" began to demand a disproportionate share of conference dollars. This led to the break-up of the Big12, led primarily by Texas. While the conference still exists, the traditional football powers have left/are leaving. Look at what has happened to the PAC12. It will essentially cease to exist after this year - only two schools have not made other plans.
So what does that mean for the Big Ten? You are likely correct that OSU and Michigan will demand a greater share of revenues because of their dominance. To prevent that, the other conference members either step up their game to make the "big 2" less dominant or else the "big 2" will leave if their demands are not granted. If they are granted, then within the conference you will have big2 dominance for as far as the eye can see with everyone else fighting for a distant third place. I am pretty confident that your idea of the football super-conference is close to what the future holds.
So what is IU to do? I believe that they have to step up as you pointed out. I am convinced that the hiring by Purdue of Walters indicates that they are determined to step up. Like it or not, Purdue's football history is better than IU's. That doesn't mean that is is great. I would classify it to average/slightly above average based upon recent history. I am convinced that the Walters hiring is a "swing for the fences" hire as opposed to a "reliable but average" coach. That means Walters will be very successful or bomb out. So far, recruiting has picked up but games have shown that the staff is learning on the job. Time will tell.
I am convinced that for IU to be relevant going forward, they must make a very, very aggressive move to bring facilities up to snuff, get a really top-tier coach (and know that it will cost big $$$) and market the hell out of the program once positive results occur.
In my opinion, that is the only way. While you revel in basketball, that is not where the evolution of college sports is headed at this time. NU and Rutgers have the advantage of population centers and the cable tv hook-ups that will keep them in conference longer than IU.
Last edited:
Tend to agree now that IUFB direction is correcting for paying its HC's.
It really starts with experienced and capable leadership, something most people understand to be the crucial element for us as we move forward. Ignoring or giving short shrift to football can no longer be tolerated. We’re going to continue to struggle until we decide to value substance over style. But, as I’ve been saying for some time, revenue sharing is just over the horizon, and that will test our program and other’s who have chronically underperformed on the gridiron. It’s inevitable.
Last edited:
The problem is that you are paying the wrong guy and facilities are not where they need to be. You can hire a top coach very quickly if you pay a substantial premium but you will not advance even with him unless facilites improve. That takes much more time and $$.
Revenue will eventually become a big issue for Ohio State, PSU, and Michigan. They are the big hitters in this conference and why in the hell would they want to split the revenues up equally when their brands dwarf most other brands in the conference.
This would be an excellent reason to invest heavily in football RIGHT NOW. Do it while still getting a full share of the revenues!!!
This would be an excellent reason to invest heavily in football RIGHT NOW. Do it while still getting a full share of the revenues!!!
I like the idea of a super conference for football, especially now that the top 20 or teams across the country are essentially professional teams. There's no reason to think IU will ever have the resources to compete with OSU, UM and PSU, regardless of leadership.
If you follow your logic then IU becomes a part of a league similar to the Big East.
The Big East was founded to create a home for urban and primarily Catholic universities when their previously independent status was threatened by the evolution of the NCAA Tournament. It did have some football schools (SYR, UConn and BC) and added more (ND, Rutgers and Va Tech) but they left over revenue sharing issues. Only two Catholic universities (ND & BC) play BCS football.
The payouts for the P5 members are far greater than the payouts for the Big East, despite the fact that they are located in major population centers and thus present more eyes for viewing. If IU decides to maintain their present strategy and not try to compete with the big guys, then their payout will substantially decrease over time.
Similar threads
