For most conference realignment moves, the timing may often be surprising, but the logic behind them makes sense. The SEC taking Texas and Oklahoma is a perfect example: the move came out of nowhere last week and shocked the college football world to its core, but it’s a move that makes perfect sense for the parties involved with increased money and power.
Every once in awhile, though, conference realignment causes a story that goes beyond the realm of reasonable possibility, such as a Power 5 conference commissioner publicly going postal on ESPN. Yesterday, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby sent a cease and desist letter to ESPN where he accuses the network of attempting to induce league members to join another conference. Then, he didn’t just let that letter speak for itself: he basically went to every media outlet out there (sans ESPN) and left no doubt about how he really feels. Conspiracy! Deception! Manipulation! Tortious interference! Backstabbing partner! All that we need is a missing body and this would be an episode of Dateline!
The only thing crazier than all of this is ESPN’s alleged plan: dissolve the Big 12 by having 3 to 5 members join the AAC. Not the ACC, but the AAC. Now, from a pure ESPN perspective, the dissolution of the Big 12 makes financial sense: that allows Texas and Oklahoma to move to the SEC without paying any exit obligations (likely in the neighborhood of $70 million to $80 million for each of those schools), move the most attractive remaining Big 12 brands to a less expensive AAC contract that’s 100% under the control of ESPN, and eliminate around $1 billion in rights fees that are remaining on the current Big 12 contract with ESPN. I have no doubt that ESPN would love everything to play out this way.
However, if these allegations are true, this is an insanely brazen and obtuse proposal regardless of incentives for ESPN. If we assume that no other P5 league is going to take any of the remaining Big 12 members, how on Earth did ESPN think this was going to work? Think of it from the perspective of the remaining Big 12 schools of the ESPN “offering”:
(1) This would have involved asking Oklahoma State to ask Tulsa for an invite to a league. It would have involved Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU to ask SMU and Houston to the same. Putting aside football, this would have required Kansas State and freaking Kansas (whose basketball program was founded by basketball inventor James Naismith) asking Wichita State to join the Shockers’ league!
(2) The Big 12 would just willingly disband and give up $140 million to $160 million of exit fees from Texas and Oklahoma.
(3) The Big 12 would further willingly dissolve and give up around $1 billion for the rest of the existing TV deal with ESPN.
Once we take a step back from the initial shock of how openly public this dispute is between the Big 12 and ESPN, the alleged proposal from ESPN is frankly comical. It’s no wonder that Bob Bowlsby claims that he has receipts that ESPN has been attempting this here: any Big 12 school that received a proposal from ESPN for them to join the AAC (not the ACC) so that they can dissolve the league and make less money in the process would have forwarded those texts and emails to the Commissioner’s Office with the subject line: “Dude?! WTF?!”
To be sure, nothing is going to change ESPN’s power position in college sports (or simply the sports world in general). However, I believe that this is going to backfire on the AAC quite badly. The AAC might get a few days of positive news cycles where they appear to be the aggressor as opposed to being the hunted in the conference realignment game. However, when anyone takes a step back and goes line-by-line comparing the Big 12 and AAC members, the fact of the matter is that the AAC would take every Big 12 member while there are several schools that the Big 12 wouldn’t touch from the AAC. That inherently means that the remaining Big 12 schools as a core are simply more valuable than the AAC and it makes more financial sense for the Big 12 to take the best schools from the AAC as opposed to the other way around.
Just 24 hours ago, I would have believed that the Big 12 was aiming to have as little backfilling as possible (maybe just taking 1 AAC school like Cincinnati plus independent BYU) or even simply stand pat at 8 schools. Frankly, the Big 12 has been spending the past several years convincing itself of reasons to not take AAC schools such as Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and Memphis. I believe those days are gone. With this accusation of the AAC coordinating with ESPN for the equivalent of a hostile takeover, my sense is that the Big 12 is going to find every reason to strip mine anything of value from the AAC to neutralize any real or perceived threat here. This may turn out well for the AAC schools that I just mentioned, but any current schadenfreude at the Big 12 predicament from the bottom half of the AAC is wildly misplaced.
In the past week, I feel that a lot of fan chatter has overrated the chances of the Big 12 schools to get an invite to any of the other Power 5 conferences since they were ignoring institutional fits and simply how much more money a school needs to bring to the Big Ten, Pac-12 or ACC just for expansion to break-even for them (much less actually be more profitable). However, it seems as if though the tide has turned where the Big 12 is now underrated in comparison to the AAC and rest of the Group of 5 leagues. The truth is somewhere in the middle – the rest of the Big 12 may not be finding homes in other P5 leagues, but they still have absolute poaching power over the G5 leagues if only because of a combination of autonomy status with the NCAA, incoming exit fees from Texas and Oklahoma and existing NCAA Tournament credits. To say that I’m watching all of this from the sidelines while eating popcorn is an understatement: this is all worthy of downing an entire souvenir Chicago skyline tin of Garrett’s Popcorn.
(Image from the Big 12 Conference)
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go Hawks!
LikeLike
Go Bucks!
LikeLike
Go Coors Beer and Go Macy’s!
Whut?
Back in the old days, Coors had a mystique because you couldn’t get it. Smokey and the Bandit had to bootleg a whole semi full of Coors from Texarkana because of that mystique.
Now that it’s available everywhere? Just another mediocre mass-produced beer.
My point is that Nebraska and Oklahoma we’re almost a legend. They came from this exotic place that people thought was full of steers and wheat. Now that Nebraska is available everywhere and has tougher competition? Meh. Same thing is going to happen to Oklahoma, but they won’t fall as far.
LikeLike
Danny, back in the old days Coors beer was not pasteurized before or after canning/bottling. It was great stuff, fabulous flavor. It had to be kept cold during trucking all the way from the from the brewery to the final destination. That was the reason for local distribution, not beer snobbery.
LikeLike
The point is still that you covet something that is not readily attainable. Once you attain it, you find out it was no big deal.
LikeLike
Coors is no longer a big deal because it is now pasteurized and tastes the same as Bud and Busch and Miller.
LikeLike
Hook ’em!
LikeLike
“Dude?! WTF?!”
LOL
LikeLike
So will we see those “receipts” in their entirety and not just email quotes plucked from context?
Regardless, this would be an insanely stupid move from ESPN. Not that ESPN is a genius, but this “sources tell me WVU and Army are going to get an SEC invite” bad.
LikeLike
Like the south wants to invite the Army to come in from the north again.
LikeLike
How long do you think the Big 12 would maintain conference autonomy without Texas and OU, regardless of the G5 schools they add?
That doesn’t seem to be in the best interests of the SEC or ESPN.
LikeLike
I think that’s up to the other conferences and/or NCAA. I don’t actually know the process by which certain conferences were named as autonomous.
The P12 and ACC may have a vested interest in protecting the B12’s status so they won’t be next to lose it.
LikeLike
I can’t tell you how giddy I am to have discovered the BIG TEN’S Overton Window!!
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
So, as always, we all want to know how this will impact the mighty Rice Owls. Unfortunately my first thoughts are negative. If the B12-2-2+2-2 raids four from the AAC, the American may want to be a more compact conference. Let’s say the chosen four are Houston, Memphis, Cincy, and UCF. The bulk of the conference will be east coast, with the small privates Tulane, SMU, and Tulsa, plus basketball only WSU, out west. The AAC could easily to decide to become an east cost group. Not adding anything west of the Mississippi makes sense. The could go with Marshall, Charlotte, MTSU and WKU. Leaving the Owls in a rump CUSA.
LikeLike
I must say that your musings about Rice are interesting. Looks like you may have to settle for Rice being an outstanding academic institution and never be a football power in Texas.
Somehow that seems like that is not a bad deal for Rice alums, though I understand your frustrations.
LikeLike
Ultimately, this move made perfect sense from the ESPN angle, it solves all their problems in a nice and tidy way:
Texas/OU take all of their big brand value to the SEC an supercharge that league, all of TV rights of which will soon be under ESPN control.
And then the AAC swallows all of the remainder of the Big 12 with their deal with ESPN that places heavy emphasis on games on ESPN+.
That’s pretty much a perfect solution for ESPN, except for the plain financial incentives for the Big 12 to remain together and poach the AAC instead as you outline here Frank.
And yeah, most sensible scenario from here is for the Big 12 to poach the AAC of its best value schools and establish themselves as the clear #5.
LikeLike
The scary thing for everyone else in CFB is that ESPN is basically laying out their plans in such a naked way:
They want to consolidate the big brands and pay them premium dollars and give them most of the big TV slots in a smaller # of conferences.
And then the rest will get much smaller paydays and be shown more on ESPN+.
LikeLike
The only way this could have worked is if one or more of the Power 4 Conferences invited a few of the remaining Big XII schools. Say the Pac taking Tech and Oklahoma State and Kansas going Big Ten or ACC.
Then the AAC could target schools like Iowa State, Baylor, and Kansas State (the three schools least likely to ever get invited to a Power Conference and hope they jump ship to secure themselves a life raft.
LikeLike
June 4th, 2010: Big Ten expansion: E-mails hint eyes are upon Texas
“A decision about expanding the Big Ten might be months away, but e-mail conversations indicate that the University of Texas is an object of the conference’s attention. And the school’s athletic director isn’t making a commitment to stay in the Big 12.
“Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee sent an e-mail to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany on April 20 saying that he had spoken with Texas President William Powers.
“I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a ‘Tech’ problem,” Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.
“Texas Tech is one of Texas’ rivals in the Big 12 conference. Ohio State officials declined a Dispatch request to explain the “Tech” problem.
“Public record laws do not require us to provide further clarification on meaning,” OSU spokeswoman Amy Murray said in an e-mail. “While a few of the e-mails are cryptic, we aren’t obliged to provide additional explanation.”
“Although speculation about the Big Ten’s interest in Texas has been widespread in the 51/2 months since the conference announced it would consider expansion, the e-mail is rare evidence of communication between the school and a high-ranking Big Ten representative.”
https://www.dispatch.com/article/20100604/SPORTS/306049719
LikeLike
I’m not sure I understand the relevance of reposting an article from 11 years ago.
LikeLike
Clearly, Texas was ready to sign on with the Big Ten at that time. So it appears that the Big Ten dropped the ball sometime during the last decade. Now UT is going to the SEC without even talking to the Big Ten as an option. What happened?
LikeLike
The landscape shifted? Think about where the conferences were in 2010 compared to 2021, or the business of football, or the NCAA, or Texas and Oklahoma politics, or even the country in general. There’s any number of reasons why Texas decided to pursue the SEC vs the BigTen this time around.
LikeLike
Spin it any way you wish but, ten years ago, we had the Horns hooked (sorry for the pun) and now we’re having serious discussions about bringing in Kansas instead. The Big Ten dropped the ball, period.
LikeLike
Sorry but we didn’t have the horns hooked, there was always a problem.
Whether the BTN or the TT issue.
As soon as ESPN made it worth Texas’ money to stay, they stayed.
LikeLike
Colin,
Did we? UT uses leverage as needed. They almost joined the B10 in the 90s, and there the B10 screwed up. But in 2010? You don’t know where UT wants to be until they commit to somewhere.
LikeLike
@Colin – 11 years ago, the Longhorn Network (whether right or wrong) was clearly a priority for UT. They killed the Pac-16 proposal over the LHN (where other Big 12 schools were confirmed to have SIGNED contracts with the then-Pac-10 to make the move) and it would have been even more untenable in the Big Ten.
Now, Texas is willing to get rid of the LHN to join the SEC, but I don’t think that was in UT’s headspace 11 years ago when having your own network was priority #1.
Another point that I’ve mentioned before: the UT Board of Regents chair has been driving the discussions with the SEC and, if you look at his biography, he is a 100% pure politician’s politician. The academically-minded administration at UT may very well prefer the Big Ten, but from a political standpoint, my educated guess is that aligning the state’s flagship university with the South is likely going to be significantly more popular in that region with the much more plentiful T-shirt fans.
LikeLike
“The academically-minded administration at UT may very well prefer the Big Ten, but from a political standpoint, my educated guess is that aligning the state’s flagship university with the South is likely going to be significantly more popular in that region with the much more plentiful T-shirt fans.”
Right. Austin the city may be one thing, but Texas the state is another beast entirely. UT made good sense, but culturally the state fits more with southern states/schools. I remember reading quite a few UT fan comments that were positively livid about the Pac12 deal, to say nothing of the OU/OkSt/TT fans. They didn’t want to be associated with California.
LikeLike
Clearly, Texas was ready to sign on with the Big Ten at that time.
All you’ve got is an email from Gordon Gee telling Delany he ought to speak with the UT president. There’s a long way from that, to “ready to sign on.” We don’t even know what was said in the supposed phone call. No source has ever reported that UT was at the point of signing on.
LikeLike
Yep. They got a phone number. That’s a long ways away from sending out wedding invitations.
LikeLike
Colin,
More cynically, what UT really said was they wanted the B10 to tell them they have a TT problem. That would be evidence UT could use to show the politicians that TT is holding them back from better options, then they could go to the SEC.
They knew the B10 would say no to TT while the SEC might have said yes to get UT.
LikeLike
The formal SEC vote is today (I saw a report of 4ET). The next shoe to drop is how Texas and Oklahoma are going to avoid the next five years in the Big 12. I have a feeling this is going to get uglier.
LikeLike
Interesting………….
LikeLike
@wscsuperfan – Yes, I saw that, too. Interesting about the Pac-12 viewpoint.
LikeLike
OMG!
LikeLike
What are the chances of Texas goes to the B1G and Oklahoma goes to the SEC. A lot can happen in 4 years.
LikeLike
Slim and none.
They will make more money in the SEC. They will be playing more of the schools they consider to be peers. They will be playing against schools that are culturally similar. They will be playing the schools that Texas H.S. football stars want to be playing against. They will preserve their OK regular-season rivalry as a conference game.
The B10 is worse for Texas in every respect, except academics. But the SEC has improved academically—not to B10 levels, but to an extent where Texas is not embarrassed to be there. Nobody makes a conference switch for purely academic reasons when it is athletically and financially worse.
LikeLike
“The B10 is worse for Texas in every respect, except academics.”
Well and money. The SEC projections may be forecasting future earnings past the BigTen, but what we’ve seen so far is that the BigTen has made more per year to date. There’s no saying Texas/OU couldn’t earn more by taking their talents to the BigTen instead of the SEC. Aside from that caveat though I agree.
LikeLike
The SEC projections may be forecasting future earnings past the BigTen, but what we’ve seen so far is that the BigTen has made more per year to date.
It’s true, if you look backwards, the Big Ten has been the bigger money winner historically. No analyst I am aware of thinks Texas looking forwards could make more money in the Big Ten. If you think so, I’d love to see the math.
LikeLike
@Marc: I have seen analysts make projections for the SEC, but I haven’t seen any make projections on the BigTen because that’s not the story.
All I know is the SEC wasn’t beating the BigTen financially without Texas, despite all of the advantages they have. We know this based on reported fact. Now they’re expected to beat the BigTen financially, based on analysis including Texas. But it’s not like Texas would suddenly drop a ton in value if they went to a conference that was already ahead, nor would that conference drop in existing value before admitting them. So I fail to see how it would hold that they wouldn’t potentially make more in the BigTen.
Now, that isn’t to say Texas is somehow screwing up by choosing the SEC and not even giving the BigTen a sniff this round. Money might be the bus driver, but there’s more to this than just money. I just don’t think it’s fair to say the SEC has a financial advantage at the foundational level, because we already know this hasn’t been the case and there isn’t much known evidence that this would be the case without Texas/OU.
Remember, the BigTen’s agreement expires in 2023. If they had managed to get Texas/OU under contract before that the next deal would’ve been astronomical as well. But they didn’t, so this is all academic.
LikeLike
The thing about SEC academics is it’s not as bad as it used to be. 10 years ago the SEC was the worst academic conference among the P5 conferences, but that’s no longer the case. The SEC now has 5 AAU schools: Texas, Texas A&M, Florida, Vanderbilt and Missouri. Also, Georgia and Kentucky, while not AAU, are still solid research institutions. Georgia ranks #55 in research spending, and Kentucky ranks #62. So, again, not AAU, but in that tier just below AAU. Even LSU and Oklahoma rank in the 80s so not terrible.
In a way, the SEC is kind of like the Big Ten in reverse. In the Big Ten, the top half of the conference is pretty good at football and the bottom half is not very good at all. But almost all of them are solid academically. In the SEC, the top half of the conference (including Texas and Oklahoma) is decent at academics and research, whereas the bottom half is not very good. But almost all SEC members are solid at football.
The top half of the SEC are decently strong research institutions, so there’s plenty there for Texas to collaborate with. It’s good enough. So that makes the decision palatable, and then they can join for all fo the football reasons they wanted to join and not feel too bad about it.
LikeLike
To drive home my point about the Big Ten being the SEC in reverse, if you look at the social media rankings for football programs, here’s the Big Ten
3. Michigan
4. Ohio State
11. Penn State
15. Wisconsin
20. Nebraska
23. Michigan State
27. Iowa
38. Minnesota
48. Rutgers
50. Illinois
52. Maryland
54. Purdue
55. Indiana
73. Northwestern
So the top half is actually pretty good, but the bottom half is pretty meh. You could say the same exact thing about SEC academics.
LikeLike
I’m extremely skeptical that the ACC wants West Virginia. And while the Big Ten might tolerate adding Kansas, I doubt they would do so without a viable partner (Missouri, Colorado, Notre Dame, Virginia, someone like that). I seriously doubt Iowa State is considered a viable partner.
The Pac 12 might benefit from expanding, and if they did I could see them taking Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, plus one more. So that’s the real question.
If the Pac 12 does expand, then the Big 12 is vulnerable, and then maybe they merge into the AAC or something.
Otherwise, the Big 12 will survive. They could add 2, 4, 6, or 8 teams. I’m guessing 2 or 4.
Best available options, by Social Media presence rank as a proxy for fan support:
existing members:
19. West Virginia
30. Oklahoma State
31. TCU
39. Baylor
44. Texas Tech
45. Iowa State
57. Kansas
70. Kansas State
Candidates:
33. UCF
37. BYU
43. Boise State
49. Houston
59. USF
62. Cincinnati
63. Navy
65. Wyoming
68. Army
71. Temple
76. Colorado State
77. Fresno State
85. SMU
87. Utah State
89. Southern Miss
91. Memphis
94. Air Force
96. Tulane
98. San Diego State
99. UNLV
100. UConn
LikeLike
Good data. I think the B12 would want to get back up to 12 members. I suspect they are not interested in Boise State, no matter what the stats say. The most plausible adds are UCF, USF, Houston, and BYU. If BYU doesn’t work, then Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Subscribe
LikeLike
As a lawyer you should know to thank God for the stupid because otherwise we would have to go get real jobs.
Subscribed
LikeLike
ESPN responds to the Big 12
LikeLike
Texas to the B1G leaves most of us Texas feeling like we’re getting an upgrade in pay only. The games against Big 10 teams just aren’t compelling, especially since most predict we would go to the west in the B1G. But placed in the SEC we get to renew historic rivalries with A&M and Arkansas, start new rivalries with LSU and others, and of course, most importantly, keep the marquee game with OU. It is by FAR the best solution. No fan really gives a shit about the academics of the league, but the SEC is at worst a push and more likely an upgrade from the Big 12
LikeLike
It’s completely nuts (because I’m not sure it really works geographically) but I do expect at least one Big Ten president to ponder adding 6-8 Pac-12 teams to the conference.
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, UW, Arizona, Colorado.
Those 8 probably would be considered. I can’t see a full merger happening, Utah is AAU but I can’t see them getting invited and if somebody gets left behind, it’s probably them.
Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State also left behind.
My ultimate question though is… does this make more money for everyone involved?
LikeLike
There are a lot of people in CA + OR + WA + AZ + CO. Over 60M by my quick math. Plus people in nearby states like NV and the mountain states who root for P12 schools. Their fandom isn’t as strong as the south or midwest, but it’s still a lot of people. And the B10 COP/C would love to have Stanford, Cal and UCLA in the group for academic/research reasons. I think Fox and/or ESPN would make it worthwhile.
I’m not saying it will happen or that it should.
LikeLike
I can see why a B10 president might consider it, but would the Pac12 schools? Unlike the B12 their members don’t seem to be panicking about being #3 or #4 on the revenue totem. There’s plenty to like though, and the idea of the SEC/BigTen relationship to essentially become The United States vs The South is fairly amusing.
LikeLike
I can see why a B10 president might consider it, but would the Pac12 schools? Unlike the B12 their members don’t seem to be panicking about being #3 or #4 on the revenue totem.
I would not say they are panicking, but they are not happy either. It’s a big reason why they forced out Larry Scott.
LikeLike
The only way I see the B1G adding PAC teams is by getting enough to create pods (instead of divisions) and then having a western pod. This way travel (and 4 hour time differences) can be effectively managed.
20 teams is the fewest that I think would work for the B1G. Add 5 schools from the PAC (western pod) and one from somewhere in the central or eastern time zone to have 15 teams (3 pods of 5)
UCLA and USC maximize the exposure in California, meet AAU requirements, and fulfill football/recruiting needs. They do this without needing to add other California schools which would limit revenue earning potential. (This leaves out Cal and Stanford – which are great institutions – but redundant in the California market)
Washing and Oregon also meet the same criteria as USC and UCLA, and do so by adding additional states/TV sets.
Colorado and Kansas would make the most logical adds of teams that are available. New region/revenue with Colorado, and they would be in the western pod. Kansas helps build the bridge to Colorado, and they would be in Midwest pod.
20 schools is a very large conference, but allowing the western schools to stay in their own pod minimizes travel while maximizing new revenue and recruiting regions.
LikeLike
z33k, yesterday I would have thought your proposal was indeed completely nuts. However after reading some of the internet traffic over the past 24 hrs, there may indeed be some melding of the B1G and Pac-12.
Imagine both conferences remaining intact but teams of either playing each other as conference members. For example, a B1G school like Illinois would play 7 B1G schools plus 2 PAC schools each year, and all 9 games would count as conference games in the B1G. Ditto the PAC schools, B1G games would count as PAC games. Nebraska and Colorado resume annual in-conference rivalry. Fox buys half of the PAC-12 Train Wreck TV Network and we get a single national network that combines both the BTN and the Pac-12 Train Wreck Network.
One thing that the PAC has learned for sure, conference networks need a Sugar Daddy. They can’t go it alone. They need a national broadcaster to bundle their sports network with the regional and national content.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2021/07/29/steve-spurrier-weighs-texas-oklahoma-leaving-big-12-sec/5416990001/
The head ball coach is at it again.
“I can understand Texas jumping over,” Spurrier said, according to the Orlando Sentinel. “They get to play Texas A&M again. They get to … they can’t win the Big 12 anyway.
“I think they’re only won two in the last 30 years or so. What is it?”
…
“I’m sort of surprised Oklahoma,” Spurrier said, according to the Sentinel. “I just don’t think they’re going to come over to the SEC and win with any regularity the way that they win the Big 12. Their fans might say, ‘Yeah, now we can beat Alabama and LSU and all these dudes.’ It may not happen like that.
“I don’t know. It’s obviously more money.”
LikeLike
Eh, he’s right and he’s wrong. To counter the attitude, I think if SEC fans are anticipating Oklahoma to hop over and get rolled like another Missouri they’re going to be sorely disappointed. Texas and Oklahoma are kings for a reason. OU getting steamrolled by a stacked LSU squad in the playoffs isn’t the same as OU playing the rest of the SEC.
LikeLike
Missouri has gone pretty close to .500 in SEC games since joining. Not sure that counts as getting “steamrolled.”
LikeLike
Mizzou actually won a couple SEC East titles while they still had Big 12 players. Haven’t done much since.
Texas bowl games vs. SEC since 2014:
Sugar 28-21 Georgia
Texas 33-16 Missouri
Texas 7-31 Arkansas
Oklahoma bowl games vs. SEC since 2014
Cotton 55-20 Florida
Peach 28-63 LSU
Orange 34-45 Alabama
Rose 48-54 2OT Georgia
Sugar 35-19 Auburn
Sugar 45-31 Alabama
Guess Spurrier is just mad about last year’s Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
Missouri’s decline wasn’t about not having Big 12 players, it was about their winningest coach of all time, Gary Pinkel, getting cancer and retiring. Win percentage took a big hit after that. We’ll see how the new coach, Drinkwitz, does. Maybe he can recapture some of Pinkel’s magic.
LikeLike
@Andy
Highly unlikely there will be pods. Much more likely the league will go with 3 historic rivals and rotates the other teams in groups of 6.
I’d bet Missou gets OU, Ark and Kentucky. They’d play either A&M or Texas once a year as well in the 6 game rotation.
LikeLike
That would be easier, for sure. There’s been some media reports of pods, we’ll see.
LikeLike
Pinkel was a loss, but so was Texas recruiting. Pinkel was able to get some good Texas players to Missouri when they were in the Big 12, but not afterwards. Will anyone be able to get good Georgia and Florida players to Missouri? Will they be able to get good Texas players again with Texas and OU in their division?
Texas always had trouble when they tried to recruit Florida players to Austin. They could do California and Arizona, but Florida was just a different culture.
LikeLike
I expect with Missouri being in the Texas/OU pod they’ll start recruiting Texas more again.
LikeLike
This becomes all about FOX. If FOX wants to expand the PAC 12 it can encourage an invitation to OK St, Iowa St.,TCU, and ? zand leAve the others scrambling.That dissolves the Big XII, helps FOX (and ironically Espn) by doing away with the rights fee paybacks that would otherwise be owed by the breakaway schools –including Texas and OU. The PAC’s hubris as to their insistence on additions with academic purity can be mollified by $$$.
LikeLike
There’s no way the Little Eight are going to walk away from what Texas and Oklahoma would owe if they leave before 2025. The dollars are just too big. Nor can I imagine that Fox would be willing to pony up such a sum, just to start a new deal a couple of years early.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/2735350/2021/07/28/why-the-secs-realignment-maneuvers-could-lead-others-to-pump-the-brakes-on-college-football-playoff-expansion/
It has become clear, both to other college sports leaders and to anyone following the timeline of events closely, that SEC commissioner Greg Sankey was preparing to poach the Big 12’s crown jewel programs even as he worked alongside Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby in the four-person CFP working group that studied expansion options. It is also clear, now, that Bowlsby was unaware of what was in motion behind his back; he praised Sankey for supporting a 12-team model that would be “what’s best” for college football at large.
“It creates some concern about the way the 12-team proposal was constructed, with a limited number of folks in the room and imperfect information between the people who were in the room,” new Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told The Athletic. “The proper process is: Everybody who has a say should have a say, and everybody should be operating with the same information.”
The CFP’s 12-year contract runs through the 2025 season, but the surprise announcement of a 12-team proposal last month led many to assume the four-team format would be blown up sooner than that. Now, momentum to make the change to the format before the contract runs out may be grinding to a halt.
…
“More importantly, I’ve yet to get an answer — although I think in hindsight I understand the motivations — about why we were rushing to get this out in June,” Kliavkoff said, “with Alston (the Supreme Court case) and NIL on the table and with no immediate next step in (the timeline for) expansion. There was, at the time, no understanding of why you needed to announce it in June.
“We mis-set expectations among our fans about how quickly this can get done. I think that’s a shame.”
LikeLike
The article is behind a paywall, so I did not read it.
While what Sankey did was surely legal, it was just as surely immoral. While I am sure that the SEC does not care, there is no reason to trust that conference in the future – for a long time. The SEC presidents had to know what Sankey was doing by poaching those teams and going for a 12 team payoff.
As I posted on the prior thread, the obvious (and proper) reaction would be to reduce the playoff number to 8 from 12, or limit the number of teams from one conference to say four or maybe five maximum. In light of how this went down, why would any other conference even accept the chance that the SEC might squeeze in six teams. Going to four might make a few SEC teams wonder if they just lost spots by bringing in UT and OU.
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie – I just don’t how the powers that be can backtrack on playoff expansion. The other part of The Athletic article was Kliavkoff also saying that he wasn’t looking to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater and it would probably more tweaks to the playoff proposal as opposed to an overhaul.
I’ve noted this elsewhere: just because the 12-team playoff might be good (or even great) for the SEC doesn’t mean that it’s not good for everyone else in college football.
For all of the talk about at-large bids, probably the most important change that I’ve seen over the past few years is how damaging it is to a power conference for them to NOT have a participant in the playoff. In the BCS era, the Rose Bowl race and playing for other BCS bowl slots could still keep the interest of fans, but that’s simply not the case any longer. Instead, TV viewership is much more akin to the NFL where games with playoff stakes (no matter who is playing) are now the driving force while everything else is ignored by comparison. To be clear, that’s not necessarily a bad thing since the viewership is in some ways a bit more egalitarian where the playoff race games trump pure brand name games. Of course, the problem is so many of those playoff race games involve 4 programs in particular (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma) where it’s leaving little oxygen for the rest of college football.
Anyway, the point is that if the Pac-12 can ensure that it’s going to get at least its conference champ into the playoff every year, then the at-large bid issue is almost superfluous. If the SEC position is that they either stay at 4 teams or go to 12 teams, I’m fairly certain that all of the other leagues (when push comes to shove) would rather go up to 12 teams (as the current CFP system that’s technically ALL at-large bids would be even worse with the perception of SEC power).
Simply put, the playoff train might be delayed a little bit, but it’s still heading toward the station.
LikeLike
Frank,
The presidents haven’t agreed to anything yet. It’s not backtracking. And going to 8 instead of 12 would still be expansion. Likewise limiting a conference to 4 teams in. The SEC will be against it, but they can always be the conference to veto expansion if they want.
The 12-team playoff is bad for CFB and most schools in I-A. But it’ll pay more than the 4-team CFP, so they’ll agree to it.
For all of the talk about at-large bids, probably the most important change that I’ve seen over the past few years is how damaging it is to a power conference for them to NOT have a participant in the playoff.
The corollary will be getting in 1 team while the SEC gets 4-6. And how about all the G5 conferences that still don’t get in? What does it do to the MWC if the AAC keeps getting and they don’t?
In the BCS era, the Rose Bowl race and playing for other BCS bowl slots could still keep the interest of fans, but that’s simply not the case any longer. Instead, TV viewership is much more akin to the NFL where games with playoff stakes (no matter who is playing) are now the driving force while everything else is ignored by comparison. To be clear, that’s not necessarily a bad thing since the viewership is in some ways a bit more egalitarian where the playoff race games trump pure brand name games.
Yes, it is necessarily a bad thing. It is also what caused UT and OU to move.
Anyway, the point is that if the Pac-12 can ensure that it’s going to get at least its conference champ into the playoff every year, then the at-large bid issue is almost superfluous.
No, it isn’t. If 6 SEC teams are in and ESPN is showing the games, it will be broadcast as a 6 team playoff with some generic opponents not worth naming playing the all mighty SEC teams.
If the SEC position is that they either stay at 4 teams or go to 12 teams, I’m fairly certain that all of the other leagues (when push comes to shove) would rather go up to 12 teams (as the current CFP system that’s technically ALL at-large bids would be even worse with the perception of SEC power).
Or the rest could be adults and stand up to the SEC, who want the money as much as anyone. Draw a line in the sand and make the SEC be the lone dissent that prevents any expansion because they couldn’t get their way entirely.
LikeLike
Likewise limiting a conference to 4 teams in. The SEC will be against it…
I don’t see the SEC vetoing a 4-team limit, if that’s what it takes to get it done. The current proposal is that the top six champs get in, and the rest are at-large. In their minds, they’d get their champ and three at-large, with everyone else left to fight over the remaining three at-large.
Sure, they’d rather be able to put 7 teams in, as the current proposal allows, but a four-team limit still puts them in a position to dominate, assuming their teams are as good as they believe.
LikeLike
That’s why I said 4. It is a reasonable limit. If you aren’t top 4 in your conference, you don’t deserve to be in the CFP no matter where you are ranked. Otherwise the conference season means nothing.
4 also happens to be how many the B10 and old SEC might have gotten in based on the CFP era. The idea is to not let taking UT and OU turn into 2 more spots for the SEC. It just gives them 2 more options to fill their 4 spots.
The SEC has always been adamant about not limiting how many teams can get in, and foolishly everyone keeps agreeing with them. Even with this expansion to 12 they fall in line. The G5, P12 and B12 should always have been pushing for a cap (ACC too, but they keep thinking Miami and FSU will be elite again). ND, too. Only the SEC and B10 gain by unlimited teams, and now the SEC even more.
LikeLike
Bernie,
And also don’t let ESPN have all the rights.
LikeLike
This cannot be overstated
LikeLike
While what Sankey did was surely legal, it was just as surely immoral.
Immoral, in what way? Everyone in the room has plans that they are under no obligation to share until they are ready. Did Bob Bowlsby really think that Texas wouldn’t test the waters as the GoR expiration date approached? The exact timing is a surprise, but not the outcome. Nobody who knows UT’s history ought to be shocked by this.
For me, the biggest shocker is that Bowlsby was caught totally off guard. He apparently didn’t know his members at all. No wonder Fake Dan Beebe has come out of the woodwork. When your two keystone members leave, and you had no clue, there is something very wrong with how you’ve done your job.
While I am sure that the SEC does not care, there is no reason to trust that conference in the future – for a long time.
If we eliminate every conference that has poached another league’s members, I am not sure who’d be left to design the next playoff. Maybe ND would have to design it by themselves.
LikeLike
This was not a question of poaching teams. Sankey went into those meetings and negotiated with the full knowledge that he was going to eviscerate the Big12 for the benefit of the SEC.
Would other people in those negotiations have reacted differently if this were public knowledge?
The expansion of the playoffs was not supposed to adversarial, but for the common good.
Exclusive of the Big12, I believe that others in that room might well have viewed many things differently had they known the actual state of facts.
When your “partner” intentionally misleads you, I call that immoral. If the negotiations were adversarial, that might be different. As far as I know, this was not supposed to be every man or woman for his or her own self.
LikeLike
It would’ve been naive to think SEC was in the room for purely altruistic reasons—assuming anyone thought that. Conferences have always been adversaries, who cooperate only in the minimal sense of agreeing on common rules so that they can compete against each other.
Exclusive of the Big12, I believe that others in that room might well have viewed many things differently had they known the actual state of facts.
True, but Notre Dame’s Jack Swarbrick was in the room too. How do you know he doesn’t have plans he hasn’t shared yet? Bowlsby could’ve had plans as well, the only difference being that his didn’t work. Ultimately, I think FTT is right that the playoff was going to expand regardless.
When your “partner” intentionally misleads you, I call that immoral.
Sankey didn’t mislead anybody, unless he said the SEC is staying at 14 teams forever, which I am sure he didn’t say.
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie – I honesty don’t believe this changes how the rest of college football views the overall playoff structure. Notre Dame and the G5 leagues are still going to want a 12-team playoff as currently proposed – they’re getting better access than before regardless of the SEC’s actions. The Big Ten and Pac-12 may want something firmer with guaranteed auto-bids for the power conferences and maybe making the Rose Bowl a permanent quarterfinal, but those are more specific details to be discussed as opposed to an objection to the overall structure.
Even looking at it from a Big 12 perspective, I think the only thing that changes for them is that they’d probably push for a guaranteed power conference auto-bid for them as opposed to having the top 6 conference champs get auto-bids. They were going into the playoff discussions thinking that they were 99% protected within the top 6 conference champs, but that’s definitely not going to be so clear going forward. Otherwise, staying with a 4-team playoff certainly doesn’t help them or the other P5 leagues at all. They and the other P5 leagues might prefer an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the power conference champs, but ND and the SEC have made it clear that they don’t agree and they can kill the deal themselves.
Here’s the bottom line: I think it’s now a choice between staying at a 4-team playoff or going to a 12-team playoff because of the aforementioned SEC/ND opposition to 8 teams. My feeling is that fans are more bothered by the prospect of more SEC auto-bids than the leagues themselves. Ultimately, the powers that be want the format that’s going to (1) ensure that they get at least one team into the playoff every year so that the value of their regular season and conference championship game TV packages go up and (2) make the most money from the playoff itself overall.
LikeLike
Frank,
“I honesty don’t believe this changes how the rest of college football views the overall playoff structure. Notre Dame and the G5 leagues are still going to want a 12-team playoff as currently proposed – they’re getting better access than before regardless of the SEC’s actions. The Big Ten and Pac-12 may want something firmer with guaranteed auto-bids for the power conferences and maybe making the Rose Bowl a permanent quarterfinal, but those are more specific details to be discussed as opposed to an objection to the overall structure.”
I think this part of the disagreement. What you label as details is part of the overall structure in my mind. How many autobids? For whom? How many champ bids? What criteria for those champ bids? Any limits per conference? Where do they play? When do they play? How are teams chosen? None of those are minor details to me.
If you just mean 12 teams with 4 byes as overall structure, there probably isn’t much disagreement since it’s more money and more access for everyone. Some people in every conference will worry about too many games, but nobody will turn down the money.
“Even looking at it from a Big 12 perspective, I think the only thing that changes for them is that they’d probably push for a guaranteed power conference auto-bid for them as opposed to having the top 6 conference champs get auto-bids.”
I think they’d definitely want to cap the number of teams the SEC (and thus anyone) can get, too.
“Otherwise, staying with a 4-team playoff certainly doesn’t help them or the other P5 leagues at all. They and the other P5 leagues might prefer an 8-team playoff with auto-bids for the power conference champs, but ND and the SEC have made it clear that they don’t agree and they can kill the deal themselves.”
Staying at 4 teams doesn’t help ND or the SEC either. They could kill the deal, but so could everyone else if ND and the SEC decide they have to get their way 100% or they’re going home. That sword cuts both ways. Why do you talk like everyone must acquiesce to the wishes of ND and the SEC on this?
“I think it’s now a choice between staying at a 4-team playoff or going to a 12-team playoff because of the aforementioned SEC/ND opposition to 8 teams.”
Screw them. If other conferences firmly believe 8 is the better option then they should stand up for it. You can always expand again to 12, but it’s almost impossible to shrink a playoff even if you realize you over-expanded it.
“My feeling is that fans are more bothered by the prospect of more SEC auto-bids than the leagues themselves.”
Sure, but fans always care more. ADs and presidents want the money first and foremost and don’t care about much else despite what they say. Since fans don’t get any of the money, we have other priorities.
But even the people at the CFP meetings might have thought differently about limiting teams if they knew OU and UT would be in the SEC. We all saw the projections for how many teams from each conference would’ve made it over the past few years.
Something like this since 2014 (CFP era):
SEC: 8 schools and 19 appearances
B1G: 7 schools and 20 appearances
P-12: 7 schools and 11 appearances
B-12: 5 schools and 12 appearances
ACC: 4 schools and 11 appearances
AAC: 4 schools and 4 appearances
ND: 3 appearances
MWC, MAC & SB: 1 appearance each
CUSA: 0
Of the B12 appearances, OU would’ve had 6 and UT 0. But add OU into the SEC mix, and you have 9 schools with 27 appearances. Of course the addition of OU and UT might also have knocked out some of those appearances as OU would be playing these other SEC playoff teams. So let’s call it 8 schools and 24 appearances. That’s still well ahead of the B10’s 7 and 20.
That’s 44 of 84 slots to the SEC and B10, an average of over 6 of 12 slots per year. In 2018 it would’ve been 8 of 12. How would people react to that? And would that become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because past success helps those conferences do even better? That’s the trend from 2014 to 2020.
“Ultimately, the powers that be want the format that’s going to (1) ensure that they get at least one team into the playoff every year so that the value of their regular season and conference championship game TV packages go up and (2) make the most money from the playoff itself overall.”
No, they want the format that will make the most money for themselves. Presumably that includes making it in every year for the P5, and also making the most for the whole CFP. Everyone else will have much better odds of getting in if they cap conferences at 4 (or even 3) teams per year, and I doubt it would cost them much money overall (if any). Maybe cap with restrictions, like no at-large team outside the top 20 can get in over a 5th (or 4th) team from a conference, so you don’t dilute the field.
The other questions is whether 6 champ slots makes as much sense to everyone with UT and OU in the SEC. That now sounds like the P4 plus 2 of the B12/AAC/MWC/other G5. Do they really want that? Might they put a restriction on rankings for the 6th champ?
LikeLike
The SEC and Big 10 will now have 30 of the 65 P5 teams and 7 of the 9 traditional and 8 of the 12 modern (including Florida schools) powers,, so its logical they would have around 50% of the bids to the playoff.
LikeLike
bullet,
That doesn’t mean people would accept it. 30/65 < 0.5 but 8/12 = 0.667. An average of 6 (still above their weight, but not crazily so) with peaks of 8? That's every at-large pick in some years. I could see others wanting to cap entrants to give themselves better odds of getting an at-large bid.
The enormous detail we haven't discussed is how the money will be split in a 12-team playoff.
Currently:
P5 each get $67M
G5 split $92M
$6M per team in the CFP
$4M per team in the NY6
Will the same sort of structure remain? The G5 are guaranteed at least 1 team getting in. There will be a lot more at-larges. If the major bowls are part of the CFP and an aligned champ doesn't qualify, what happens? Will the AAC and MWC be content to see the B12 reap a huge windfall despite having no real separation from them in terms of brands and TV ratings? Or will there be pressure to pay more to teams that make it and guarantee less (as a %)?
The answer to the revenue split is directly tied to how conferences will feel about capping entrants.
LikeLike
Outgoing FSU President
“My point to (FSU director of athletics) David Coburn and to (new ACC commissioner) Jim Phillips is I don’t want Florida State to be left behind. I consider us as part of the ACC, but I also know that we have a marquee name, Clemson has a marquee name. I think there might be people coming after us, I don’t know, but we’ve got to be prepared no matter what the options are.”
https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/sports/college/fsu/football/2021/07/29/florida-state-fsu-football-john-thrasher-president-university-retiring-acc-ncaa-oklahoma-texas/5415221001/
LikeLike
“At the end of the day, it’s all about money. It’s about TV revenue, contracts. Nobody can leave a conference without a significant buyout penalty, including us, so it would have to be something very special for us to leave,” Thrasher said.
“On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we can’t attract some other people. I think the ACC, when you put the academic side of what it’s about today against any of the other conferences, we’re head and shoulders (above), I think. That, to me, is attractive to some of the universities out there. Preparation, options, all that’s on the table. We’re getting prepared for whatever happens.
Oh really? I can think of a couple of conferences who might disagree. Maybe even 3.
LikeLike
I know a bit about the FSU situation, including knowing David Coburn,. but nothing that I am about to write is not commonly known. I have no inside info, but know how they think (which is obvious to everyone in any event).
FSU has two huge issues/problems.
Disparity in money to UF as opposed to FSU. FSU does not have huge money donors who could even try to close the gap, which will grow dramatically.
Since TAMU “stole” Jimbo Fisher, the football product has collapsed. For now FSU is still a king, but for how much longer. Lots of people in Tallahassee do not mind the UT to SEC situation, since it is pure aggravation to Fisher.
Back in the old days FSU had a top 5 recruiting class year after year and had the number one class more than once.. Now if they wind up with a top 10 class, they will be thrilled. The past three years FSU has been around 20, while Clemson is in the top two or three.
While FSU still has a strong label, for how much longer? Since they are in the Florida/southern Georgia recruiting area, the potential to get back to the top is there. Will that last forever?
LikeLike
FSU has one really good option to fix it’s issues. Join the SEC along with Clemson.
LikeLike
That assumes that the SEC wants to add FSU and Clemson.
LikeLike
LikeLike
How many bean balls should they expect in B12 baseball games over the next 4 years? Hard fouls in hoops? Clips, cut blocks and personal fouls in football?
LikeLike
How many bean balls should they expect in B12 baseball games over the next 4 years? Hard fouls in hoops? Clips, cut blocks and personal fouls in football?
I hope none, because the athletes didn’t have any say in the decision and I don’t want to see injuries because of it. I do expect some very hostile crowds, untimely fouls, penalties, and tight strike zones. To the extent they can, I’m sure they’ll get the short end of the stick on start times (how’d Oklahoma end up with another 11AM kick? oops) and bowl slots.
LikeLike
So the SEC won the realignment game. The B1G has no counter other than Notre Dame and that doesn’t look like it’s happening anytime soon.
So what does the B1G do? A merger with or raid of the PAC doesn’t appear to be the B1G’s style. The B1G should just play a different game.
A scheduling alliance has been discussed, but what about a B1G/PAC showdown over the Labor Day weekend? Last season’s B1G # 1 plays PAC #1 on down the line, and then B1G 13 plays B1G 14 non conference.
Sell it as a separate package when the current agreements expire. Use Thursday night, and three time slots on Friday, Sunday, and Monday, four slots on Saturday. No game competes against another. The top four games all on network primetime. PAC hosts one year, B1G hosts the following year. It would be a B1G/PAC marathon/telethon.
Benefits include the B1G/PAC owning opening weekend and limiting the SEC to ACC schools for their neutral site games, or punching bags.
This also allows the B1G and the PAC to boycott the SEC without formally boycotting the SEC.
I’m an SEC guy just trying to help.
LikeLike
Only way the Pac-12 schools (6-8 of them join the Big Ten) is if USC drives that bus out of the Pac.
USC is the one that makes those types of decisions in all likelihood (same way they did on them giving up their preferential deal that they and UCLA had for extra money to get a Pac-12 Network off the ground).
As far as Big Ten goes, I think Big Ten just waits until we get closer to 2030s.
FSU and Clemson aren’t going to sit in the ACC without making noise if they fall way behind the SEC and that could shake things up there for not only those 2 but also UNC/UVA and the rest of the ACC as well as ND.
There’s no reason for the Big Ten to do anything to respond to the SEC here.
LikeLike
“ on them giving up their preferential deal that they and UCLA had for extra money to get a Pac-12 Network off the ground)”
There was no extra money exchanged. It was a guarantee they would get the amount that was scheduled if the new numbers were low. They were not low. As a benefit of all schools grant of rights the P12N was able to be formed.
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson aren’t going to sit in the ACC without making noise if they fall way behind the SEC and that could shake things up there for not only those 2 but also UNC/UVA and the rest of the ACC as well as ND.
FSU and Clemson have the same problem they had 10 years ago: no assurance that any other conference would offer them a better deal. That was why they signed the GoR.
Arguably, their situation has gotten worse. Last time around, they could have flirted with the Big 12. Now, they can’t even do that.
FSU is a rare bird in CFB: a recently crowned king. Their history of sustained excellence doesn’t go back a hundred years, or even fifty. They are in a rut right now. They don’t have the structural advantages that, say, Michigan has (another program in a rut). Even if there were no GoR, I am not sure the SEC would want them today. We already know the B1G doesn’t.
So they can rattle their saber as much as they want, but it only matters if they have other options.
LikeLike
We will have to see what type of number the new SEC gets but I think it’s going to be significantly above what the B1G gets for the foreseeable future. I would guess UT/OU produced 70-80% of the Big 12’s value, and that value was just transferred to the SEC.
Waiting until the 2030s to take a shot at the ACC/ND schools would be a major mistake. In the next 10+ years the SEC will be cashing checks, hiring the best coaching staffs, recruiting the best players, winning titles, and then repeating the cycle. There is already talk about the new SEC being the equivalent of the Premier League of college football. Assuming no other realignment, there’s going to be only one conference getting all the media attention and only one conference recruits flock to.
Keep in mind the SEC will also be targeting the same ACC schools for its next expansion in the 2030s. I think the B1G could win a battle for UVA and GT but I think the SEC would win the battle for UNC with Duke coming along. At that point I could see the SEC offering FSU to lock up Florida.
So now the B1G is looking at Miami or ND as its remaining ACC targets. Miami isn’t AAU and ND has spurned the B1G multiple times before. Would the addition of UVA/GT change that? Frankly, in this scenario I see ND remaining independent and keeping its non hockey sports in the reduced ACC which would still have Clemson (hard to see the SEC doubling up in South Carolina with a school that while elite now was above average not too long ago), Miami, and VT as football headliners and would most likely add UCF and WVU. ACC would be diminished but it would still be a power 4 league.
I think the time is now to explore an acquisition of 6-9 Pac 12 schools in some form so that the new SEC doesn’t suck up all the oxygen in the room. To be clear, there aren’t any moves the B1G could make to stay ahead of the SEC, but I think this is the only move that keeps them close.
LikeLike
Tom,
The SEC won’t find out their new numbers for a while if UT and OU don’t join until 2025 (doubtful). The new deal to replace the CBS deal starts in 2024. ESPN already agreed to pay a ton for that, but will presumably up the number now. The existing SEC/ESPN deal runs through 2033-34. While ESPN will boost the SEC deal to account for UT and OU, it won’t be quite the same as if the SEC was starting a new deal because Fox can’t bid against them and drive the price up.
The B10 starts a new deal in 2023. The B10 projects to be paying out almost $60M per school by then, and roughly $70M by 2029 just based on annual 3% growth. Historically, new deals also include a bump up from the old deal as sports rights keep increasing in value.
Most leaks have put the SEC in the vicinity of $80M per year roughly. I don’t see that as huge gap, especially if the B10 gets a bump with their new deal. We’ll know soon enough as the B10’s new deal should come out next year I’d think.
I doubt UT and OU are quite that much of the value, simply because other teams provide 75% of the appearances and they have better brands than G5 teams, but I agree it’s more than 50%. And UT hasn’t been in the B12 CCG a lot, so other schools have been providing value there.
Until proven otherwise, the ACC is untouchable until the 2030s. All their rights are given to the ACC until 2036. It can’t make financial sense to take any of their teams until the 2030s. If the UT and OU moves shows otherwise, then maybe the B10 or unhappy ACC members push harder.
The world isn’t ending. ESPN already only talks about the SEC and they already get most of the top recruits. This won’t really change much, as OU and UT could already recruit well.
LikeLike
Waiting until the 2030s to take a shot at the ACC/ND schools would be a major mistake.
The ACC schools are locked up with a GoR, and nobody has ever broken one of these. UT and OU timed their SEC application to align with the GoR expiration. There is no serious talk of them getting out sooner.
The hardest contract to break is a simple one, and the GoR is quite simple: you grant your media rights to the conference in exchange for revenue shares while you are a member. If you leave, you get zero. How do you break out of that? The fact that you regret a contract is never reason in itself to invalidate it. These are sophisticated parties, so they cannot claim they were duped.
This is why no informed party is talking about the ACC breaking up before the 2030s. It can’t be done at acceptable cost.
I think the time is now to explore an acquisition of 6-9 Pac 12 schools in some form so that the new SEC doesn’t suck up all the oxygen in the room. To be clear, there aren’t any moves the B1G could make to stay ahead of the SEC, but I think this is the only move that keeps them close.
A Pac-12 acquisition would be a media story for the first 15 minutes. Then, the Big Ten would have those mouths to feed for decades. There aren’t 6–9 Pac-12 schools that would improve the Big Ten’s revenue-per-member, which is the only metric worth expanding for.
Your suggestion is a bit like getting pregnant so you can be the center of attention for 9 months, forgetting that you then have a baby to raise for 18 years.
LikeLike
A scheduling alliance has been discussed, but what about a B1G/PAC showdown over the Labor Day weekend? Last season’s B1G # 1 plays PAC #1 on down the line, and then B1G 13 plays B1G 14 non conference.
That would be a rounding error in the TV contract. Bear in mind, the current B1G scheduling format is 9 conference games, 1 OOC P5 game, and 2 buy games. They are not going to eliminate the buy games, because every team wants 7 home dates every year. They are not going to eliminate a conference game, because that’s revenue the B1G doesn’t have to share.
So all that happens, is that the P5 game on their schedule is always against the Pac-12. I am not sure that’s much of an improvement, because the B1G attracts some pretty good OOC match-ups from other conferences.
LikeLike
The only B1G OOC game to attract 5m+ viewers in 2019 was UM/ND. This plan would give you 3 or 4.
I didn’t say this is a counter that equals the SEC’s move, but it’s the best I can come up with.
LikeLike
Alan,
2019 was also the only year recently when OSU didn’t have a marquee OOC game. We had 5 road B10 games, and the TCU home and home got converted to a single neutral site game (Dallas) in 2018 leaving us with FAU, UC and Miami (OH).
LikeLike
B1G doesn’t need to do anything in the short term. In another year or so, they will negotiate a new TV deal that will put the league close in revenue to the “new” SEC.
LikeLike
I wonder if a B1G/Pac scheduling arrangement could be set up to include a number of games with members of a reconstituted B12. A soft wall isolating the the southeast.
LikeLike
Problem is just those remaining 8 teams in the Big 12 don’t really bring significant eyeballs.
It is what it is, but after the conference lost Texas/A&M/OU/Nebraska/Colorado/Missouri; they lost all the teams that have markets bigger than your average AAC team.
Rest of the schools will probably still get home and homes in many cases the first couple years… but after that?
Some of them might have to do 2 for 1s.
LikeLike
From an Austin reporter
https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/otfccl/ama_hi_we_are_jenni_and_brian_and_we_cover_ou_and/
hookem_statesman 29 points 8 hours ago
It’s my understanding from Texas sources that moving to the SEC was the only legitimate play that was available. There’s no other league that makes sense to them. Having made the trip to Cal (2016) and then the trip to USC (2017), getting home at 5 or 6 a.m. Central time turned a lot of Texas administrators off from going to the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Slightly more context:
Was the SEC the only conference OU and UT looked at or did they explore moving to other conferences as well?
OU reporter
Our reporting hasn’t turned up anything that would suggest OU and Texas were looking at other conferences. Perhaps they did, but geographically, the SEC makes the most sense. Its profile is also highest, so makes the most sense. The Big Ten has a pretty huge conference payout out, like the SEC, so maybe there was a glance there, but again, we haven’t heard anything from anyone official to my knowledge that it was anything other than the SEC.
UT reporter
It’s my understanding from Texas sources that moving to the SEC was the only legitimate play that was available. There’s no other league that makes sense to them. Having made the trip to Cal (2016) and then the trip to USC (2017), getting home at 5 or 6 a.m. Central time turned a lot of Texas administrators off from going to the Pac-12. BD
I think it’s important to note that they didn’t find any evidence UT seriously considered the B10 this time around. It squashes the rumors that the B10 rejected them because of OU.
LikeLike
I think it came down to recruiting. If OU and Texas were to go anywhere else but the SEC, they would have real challenges recruiting at the level of the SEC programs.
If the “recruiting problem” hadn’t developed over the last decade, I think Texas would have looked really hard at the B10 or Pac12.
LikeLike
Texas and OU have the 5th and 9th most talented programs in the country. The cupboards aren’t bare. Where’s the “recruiting problem”?
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/2021/07/30/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-indoor-cfp-playoff-games-buckeyes/5418509001/
A little more from Gene Smith about northern outdoor CFP games and the B10 CCG.
“I love the concept, for fans and everybody else. And I imagine TV people would want to see that and talk about it. That’s excitement. I get that,” Smith said Wednesday, one day after the Dispatch ran a story in which the AD mused how it would be “risky” for Ohio State to host a December playoff game because player safety could be jeopardized by competing on a frozen field.
Yes, Smith agreed that the Buckeyes would have a built-in advantage against warm-weather southern schools coming north to play a first-round playoff game in the cold. (“Playing us in a snowstorm, no question our people would like to see that,” he said.) But he also doubled down on why conducting “championship games” in open-air northern stadiums is not the best option, explaining that quality of performance as well as player safety are considerations.
“For a championship game, it ought to be played in the best conditions possible for players to perform,” he said. “The playoff is a championship opportunity. You’re playing for a championship at that point. It’s why we play the Big Ten championship game indoors.”
When reminded that Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren revealed last week that outdoor stadiums would be considered for future conference championship games, Smith said that outdoor venues are discussed every year, with nothing coming of it.
In other words, don’t hold your breath that Soldier Field in Chicago or MetLife Stadium in New Jersey are getting Big Ten championship games anytime soon.
We need to clarify Smith’s initial statement on player safety. Given the blowback on social media, clearly many Ohio State fans misinterpreted his comments to mean he was mostly, or even only, concerned with the safety of players from southern teams.
Hard stop. Irate fans heard Smith say: “In the northern part of the country we have inclement weather. And I don’t want to put the kids in a situation where they’re playing on the hard, frozen field.” They assumed his safety warning was aimed at players from hot spots like Florida State, Miami and Alabama.
“I’m talking about all players, including ours,” Smith clarified on Wednesday.
…
Circling back to Smith, it should be noted that he is not dead-set on having his way.
“This is all just my opinion. I wouldn’t stand on the table (for it),” he said. “All I’m doing is raising concerns. I’m not saying you can’t do this. Players may say, ‘We’re fine playing in the cold.’ We just need to look at all angles. Who knows? Maybe by the time this happens, we might have heat (under) the field.”
LikeLike
MetLife Stadium is a modern NFL facility that hosted a Super Bowl in January. It is probably safe for a college football game in December. (I would prefer the Big Ten avoid it because no team is near there except Rutgers, but that’s a different argument.)
On the other hand, the Big Ten sends teams to the Pinstripe Bowl, which takes place in Yankee Stadium even later in December than these games would be. No championship is at stake in those games, but if you are concerned about safety, presumably the stakes of the game ought to be irrelevant.
We need to clarify Smith’s initial statement on player safety. Given the blowback on social media, clearly many Ohio State fans misinterpreted his comments to mean he was mostly, or even only, concerned with the safety of players from southern teams.
I interpreted Smith’s comment the way he meant it initially, i.e., that he was concerned for OSU player safety as well. But it’s a bit sad that IF the only concern was the opponents’ safety, many fans think he shouldn’t care.
LikeLike
The NFL plays outdoors games in December and January all the time. But:
1. They’re pro players, not amateurs.
2. They have fancier stadiums designed to be open then.
3. They have more money to spend on snow removal, installing underground heating, etc.
4. There are only 32 NFL teams and many are in the south and west where this isn’t a concern. CFB has a lot more teams in areas of concern and all of them would have to be prepared to host.
LikeLike
Texas accpets
LikeLike
Notes on impact on lower conferences: https://www.extrapointsmb.com/what-im-hearing-and-reading-about-conference-realignment-from-the-aac-to-the-asun/
This caught my eye:
“I’m told that Conference USA’s membership meets the NCAA bylaw requirements to potentially split off and create a new league, while still retaining an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament, just like the Mountain West did when it left the WAC.”
LikeLike
And this:
The only other major note that has come up in several conversations it that the Texas school that actually might have the best shot of grabbing a Pac-12 invite isn’t Texas Tech, but TCU.
On paper, that seems like an awkward fit, given TCU’s status as a religious private school and the Pac-12 has historically been loath to engage with religious private schools as potential members, but I’ve told that TCU’s religious affiliation is not anywhere close to what religious affiliation looks like at say, Baylor, or BYU.
TCU’s growth in graduate programs, their status as the only particularly urban school left in the Big 12, and their willingness to be flexible, makes them a candidate not to be completely overlooked, especially if the Pac-12 expands by more than one, and if the league is seriously willing to be less dogmatic about academics or institutional fit as they’ve historically been.
LikeLike
Sounds like this guy has been reading my posts on Frank the Tank.
LikeLike
I think he used to post here 2011ish.
LikeLike
Heh. Who knew we were “sources” nowadays?
LikeLike
Remember when we all thought that UT and OU couldn’t leave the Big 12 without TT and OSU?
LikeLike
In our defense, it was true before. The vagaries of the TX government made it possible for UT this time. The changing of the guard in OK allowed it for OU. Those parameters are a little outside the purview for most of us.
LikeLike
It is not a criticism; it was the reality of what we all were reading and hearing at the time.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
And now both Texas and Oklahoma get to find out if there are, or what the in state long term ramifications may be over years and years to come.
LikeLike
@Marc –
When Texas says they have a “Tech problem” we don’t really have much choice other than to believe them. Its hard to know that David Boren’s policy of refusing to abandon OSU isn’t also held by his successor. Those situations changing result in the conventional wisdom on here being wrong from time to time. We do the best we can and (IMHO) that makes this the most knowledgeable board* on realignment. We end up getting a lot more right than we get wrong. That being said, I’m pretty sure every A&M fan has Frank’s “Angry Aggies” page bookmarked to refute anything said here.
*Try some of the others “ECU to the Big Ten!”
LikeLike
As I noted above, I am not saying we were wrong or naive to have believed that. Based on the parties’ public statements and behavior then, it was the right thing to believe.
LikeLike
To be fair, that blog by Frank was woefully wrong and many Aggies knew it at the time it was posted. However, its not relevant any longer.
It would also be foolish to just say “things” are different now. Without understanding that the “thing” most different is A&M joined the SEC a decade ago. Its exited and nothing happened other than more money, better recruiting and a much healthier overall program.
One might say it paved the way for this outcome.
LikeLike
For those wanting the P12 teams to bring value check out this: https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-are-the-most-valuable-in-conference-realignment-b8e840f42189
“Which college football programs are the most valuable in conference realignment?
No single metric tells the whole story. But I averaged out each program’s ranking in four different categories to calculate a sensible ranking of the most valuable programs. Here are the categories:
Home attendance: The number of people attending each home is one way to measure the size and passion of a fan base. College Football News calculated the five-year attendance average for every FBS school after the 2019 season.
Market size/share: In 2011, Nate Silver calculated the number of fans of each college football team using market population and survey data. The data might look a little different if redone in 2021, but it’s as strong a methodology for determining the number of fans that I’ve seen.
Valuation: After the 2019 season, the Wall Street Journal calculated how much each college football program would be worth on the open market if it could be bought and sold like a professional sports franchise. The valuations take into account revenues and expenses, along with cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections.
Social media following: It’s not perfect, but one easy way to measure the size of each fan base is to look at how many people follow each team on social media. As TV moves over to digital, it’s valuable to look at which teams have the largest followings in the digital space.”
Top 30
B1G
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
5. Penn State
15. Wisconsin
16. Nebraska
18. Iowa
19. Michigan State
SEC
3. Alabama
4. Texas
7. LSU
8. Georgia
9. Auburn
10. Texas A&M
11. Florida
12. Oklahoma
13. Tennessee
17. South Carolina
20. Arkansas
28. Mississippi
29. Kentucky
30. Mississippi State
ACC
6. Notre Dame
14. Clemson
21. Florida State
22. Virginia Tech
24. Miami
PAC-12
23. Southern Cal
25. Washington
26. Oregon
27. UCLA
LikeLike
Thanks. It confirms my sense, that although a B1G/P12 alliance would undoubtedly help the P12, the B1G doesn’t gain very much.
LikeLike
The PAC schools may have the greatest opportunity for growth out of any on the list. They have limited media coverage and the PAC network is a flop. Get them games in the 6:00pm time slot for the central/eastern time zones and additional coverage from BTN and they may provide more value then their current rank.
LikeLike
You also get the advantage of all the B10 fans and displaced midwesterners suddenly gaining an interest in P12 games. And frankly, many P12 fans are more interested in USC vs the top half of the B10 than USC vs much of the P12. Especially since they’ve been missing the CFP, they don’t have the conference allegiance as strongly as the SEC or B10.
LikeLike
@Brian and @Mike – Yes, those are the main arguments for an alliance (or some type of arrangement) with the Pac-12 even though the Big Ten currently has a decided revenue advantage.
In terms of short-to-medium term revenue over the next 10-15 years, the Big Ten is way far ahead of the Pac-12.
The main risk for the Big Ten is more in the 20-plus year timeframe when the SEC, ACC and Pac-12 population bases have continued to grow while every state in the Big Ten besides maybe Maryland is in slow-to-no-growth mode (and even Maryland is hardly booming like Florida/Texas/Arizona). If the SEC has locked up the Deep South plus Texas/Oklahoma and the ACC “near” South schools like UVA and UNC still don’t want to move, then the only other option for the Big Ten to get into any area with great demographic growth is West.
I personally don’t advocate for a merger between the Big Ten or Pac-12, but whenever I see proposals that the Big Ten should “just” pick off 6 to 9 Pac-12 schools, you may as well be arguing for a full merger at that point. Of the 3 non-AAU schools in the Pac-12, I’d have to think Arizona State has to be as acceptable as any non-Notre Dame non-AAU school could possibly be for the Big Ten as a massive research university that is *directly* located in the mega-fast-growing Phoenix metro area that has one of the largest concentrations of Big Ten alums outside of the Midwest. Oregon State and Washington State may not be perfect Big Ten fits, but if taking them means that you’re getting every other school of value in the entire Western portion of the US for college sports purposes (and it’s effectively a true regional monopoly with no other power conference competitors), then it’s reasonable for the Big Ten to consider that proposal.
As I’ve stated, it makes little sense money-wise for the Big Ten to do this in the short-to-medium term. My guess is that the Big Ten won’t be doing anything in reaction to the SEC moves that is anything more than maybe a non-conference scheduling alliance with the Pac-12. However, if we’re looking at the 20-50 year horizon, today might be the most powerful that the Big Ten is going to be compared to other P5 leagues, so it’s a consideration.
(Another thought regarding the revenue gap between the Big Ten and Pac-12: the main reason why the Pac-12 is behind the other P5 leagues revenue-wise is the Pac-12 Network. The “good” thing if you’re looking at this from the Big Ten point of view is that the Pac-12 can unilaterally decide whether to continue with that network or not. In essence, the Pac-12 could immediately fold the Pac-12 Network and consolidate those rights into the Big Ten Network. That would quickly unlock a ton of value in all of the Pac-12 schools (even ones like Oregon State and Washington State) that hasn’t been realized for the past 10 years. Even though cable households aren’t the be-all end-all that they were 11 years ago, that would still be a *massive* expansion of households and coverage for that channel in the short-term and huge inventory of content for streaming purposes in the long-term.)
LikeLike
Frank,
I’d counter by saying another big reason the P12 is so far behind in revenue is the membership of low values schools like WSU and OrSU. They have no brands and bring no markets. The other members would be earning over $40M per year if the money was split 10 ways instead of 12.
I’m not convinced ASU is needed or that the COP/C would consider them. Yes it’s in Phoenix, but Tucson is only 115 miles away. UA does more research than ASU and is an AAU member. And as with the other “State” schools in the P12, ASU brings no brands. Dropping to 9 schools would make the payout almost $45M.
That leaves the northern CA pair, which I have to believe the COP/C covet regardless of what the revenue numbers would do, and the mountain pair of CU and UU. Both are AAU members that bring their states, though Utah isn’t a big market. You could potentially drop UU as the newbie to the P5 and the smallest state out there.
That leaves an 8-team package that would pull over $45M per school and maybe approach $50M. That’s with a crappy conference network and poor TV windows.
Now move those same brands into a deal with the B10 and their value automatically increases. Look how much money adding RU and UMD made for the B10. Now the B10 would add LA, SF, Phoenix, Seattle, Riverside, San Diego and Denver, all top 20 metro areas (giving the B10 #1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12-17, 19). And it would add team Nike.
The point is, even in the short run I think the B10 could break even or better if they added a subset of the P12. I’m not advocating for it, but I don’t think a short term loss would happen. Besides, if the money was less they could agree to a slightly lesser payout so the current 14 lose nothing and the P8 would still be getting a huge bump.
LikeLike
@Brian – Oh, I agree that adding USC, UCLA and a handful of the other most valuable Pac-12 brands is worth more (per school) to the Big Ten than a full merger. There’s no doubt in my mind on that one.
It’s more of the point where if you’re asking over 50% of the members to leave a league, you might be logistically looking at a full merger if you realistically want to get all of those schools to agree to come. The Big Ten targeting 2 to 4 Pac-12 schools is one thing. If you just truly want every Pac-12 market of value, though, then you’re at the point of taking so many more schools that we have to question whether the Big Ten is going to let Oregon State and Washington State get in the way. Granted, maybe the Big Ten’s answer there is “Yes – we’re not taking Oregon State and Washington State even if it means giving up the entire rest of the Pac-12.” I wouldn’t put it past them to take that position, either. It just wouldn’t be a hard “No” in I’m putting myself in the Big Ten leaders’ shoes, though.
LikeLike
If UT and OU can escape their little brothers, so can UW and UO.
It could really bolster the MWC, and frankly they’d fit better there.
LikeLike
Yeah Frank, I think logically, the Big Ten has to make its moves in the next 10-12 years, especially if we’re talking about grabbing ACC schools or Pac-12 schools.
If you go past 20 years, I don’t think the numbers work anywhere near as favorably and you’ve probably fallen way too far behind the SEC.
One thing to keep in mind though is demographically, much of the SEC looks like much of the Big Ten.
Yes, Texas/Florida/Georgia are substantially different, but the rest of the SEC is similar demographically to the Big Ten.
It’s mainly just that the Big Ten has to get onto the East or West coast in the next 10-12 years; whichever the leadership picks.
LikeLike
Utah was just admitted into the AAU and from what I can tell, Arizona State actually ranks about the same in research and federal grants as Utah. Just looking at the rankings, it looks like Arizona is about as high as any non-AAU member.
Among P5 schools that are not AAU, in terms of strength of candidates in terms of federal research grants, it looks like it would rank something like this:
1. Arizona State
2. NC State
3. Miami
4. Virginia Tech
5. Kentucky
6. Georgia
7. Oregon State
LikeLike
Andy,
You forget about normalization by size. ASU is huge, so it’s research number has to be large. But per faculty member, it drops down.
WF should be #1 on that list from an AAU perspective. They were the next P5 school in line to join the AAU after the latest round of additions, with Miami just behind them (both around the 25th percentile of AAU members). OrSU was a little farther down the list. ASU, VT, NCSU and OU were all between the next-to-last remaining member and the last remaining member.
Click to access annual_report_2019.pdf
The CMUP data shows ASU with $484M in federal research and UA with $610M (both in 2017). Considering how much larger ASU is, I’ll take the much smaller school with a lot more research.
LikeLike
@Brian, ah, so it’s per faculty member, is it?
These seem to be the schools of interest, schools at risk of getting kicked out and P5 schools that would like to get in. Federal research dollars and full time faculty counts:
Missouri $107M in 2017, I’m hearing it’ll be at least $150M to $180M after $260M in recent capital investments in medical research at Mizzou. 1200 full time faculty.
Kansas $85M. 1300 full time faculty
Iowa State $125M. 1500 full time faculty.
Oregon $57M. 1100 full time faculty
Oregon State $157M 1400 full time faculty.
Arizona State $214M. 2100 full time faculty.
Nebraska $99M. 1300 full time faculty.
Oklahoma $70M. 1300 full time faculty.
Wake Forest $147M. 600 full time faculty.
Miami $193M. 1100 full time faculty.
NC State $213M. 1700 full time faculty.
Virginia Tech $181M. 1900 full time faculty
Georgia $153M. 2100 full time faculty
Kentucky $168M 1400 full time faculty
LSU $80M. 1300 full time faculty
So I realize there are probably several other universities making major capital investments for the purpose of staying in/getting into the AAU, but the only one I have specific information on is Missouri, and I’m trying to be pretty conservative on the projection.
Here are the rankings of the ratios, number is federal grant dollars per full time faculty member:
1. Wake Forest 245k
2. Miami 175k
3. Missouri projection after new investments: at least 125k, maybe as much as 150k
4. NC State 125k
5. Kentucky 120k
6. Oregon State 112k
7. Arizona State 102k
8. Virginia Tech 95k
9. Missouri in FY17 89k
10 Iowa State 83k
11. Nebraska 76k
12. Georgia 73k
13. Kansas 65k
14. LSU 62k
15. Oklahoma 54k
16. Oregon 52k
Some observations:
1) It looks like Missouri will probably retain AAU status due to their recent investments in medical research.
2) Kansas and Oregon have a lot of work to do to avoid getting kicked out. I believe Kansas is scrambling like Missouri is and they are making improvements, but I don’t know the details.
3) It looks like I was wrong about Georgia. They are not particularly close to getting into the AAU, and neither is Oklahoma or LSU.
4) Kentucky actually looks like the SEC’s best bet for a 6th AAU school.
5) Wake Forest and Miami should be in the AAU.
LikeLike
Andy,
Yes, the AAU ranks schools based on normalized (per faculty member) metrics. That’s why ag schools are a problem – their research isn’t counted bu their faculty are. Schools can make a case for themselves based on the straight numbers (NE tried that), but the AAU defaults to normalized values.
“So I realize there are probably several other universities making major capital investments for the purpose of staying in/getting into the AAU,”
Yes, it’s a never ending race to get more research. The current AAU members are in that race too, so the bar keeps getting raised.
“1) It looks like Missouri will probably retain AAU status due to their recent investments in medical research.
2) Kansas and Oregon have a lot of work to do to avoid getting kicked out. I believe Kansas is scrambling like Missouri is and they are making improvements, but I don’t know the details.
3) It looks like I was wrong about Georgia. They are not particularly close to getting into the AAU, and neither is Oklahoma or LSU.
4) Kentucky actually looks like the SEC’s best bet for a 6th AAU school.
5) Wake Forest and Miami should be in the AAU.”
As long as they keep pace or slowly move up the rankings, MO should be fine.
KU and UO both have the ag school issue and could be at risk if the AAU gets into a snit about trimming outliers again, but they aren’t that far behind the rest. SU was another 10 spots down the list from them, and NE 14 down.
OU is at about the same as UO and KU. That’s not enough to get in, but it is respectable. UGA and LSU rank near NE.
In 2008, OU was just ahead of UK in the AAU rankings. Both are decades from getting in.
Like I said, WF and Miami are equivalent to the 25th percentile of the AAU members. based on the past, they need to get to about the 50th percentile to be invited (on par with GT and Dartmouth). That’s moving up about 25 spots in the rankings. But they are the next schools in line.
LikeLike
Brian:
“ KU and UO both have the ag school issue…”
UO has an ag school? You mean OU?
LikeLike
No, that was just a screw up in editing. I think UO’s problem has been a lack of funding. They’re been very short on tenured faculty, at about a 35:1 ratio before starting to do more hiring. That also cuts into how much research they do.
LikeLike
Also, I’m with Brian on this.
The Big Ten will not add all 12 Pac-12 schools in a merger. It just doesn’t make financial sense. You’re not going to be able to justify feeding 26 mouths when you can feed 22 a larger split of nearly the exact same pie.
The problem with the ACC and Pac-12 is both have a lot more schools that don’t bring anything (even just location if not brands) to the table compared to the Big Ten.
If the Big Ten adds Pac-12 schools, it will most likely be 6-8 (probably 8 just to bring all the AAUs and all the major markets except Utah).
LikeLike
Every conference has them.
The SEC probably has the least in terms of revenue. They certainly have some poor performing academic schools, but in terms of valuation, the only school ranked outside of the top 33 is Vanderbilt. There’s literally very little fat to cut in terms of athletics value and revenue.
But the Big Ten has quite a bit of low valued schools in #36 Minnesota, #46 Illinois, #51 Rutgers, #52 Indiana, #54 Purdue, #58 Maryland, and #61 Northwestern.
That isn’t a lot different from the Pac 12 with #41 Utah, #44 Cal, #48 Stanford, #50 Arizona, #53 Colorado, #63 Oregon State and #66 Washington State.
View at Medium.com
If you’re really trying to consolidate and maximize value, you should blow up the Big Ten and the Pac 12 and start over, make a top 12 combined league:
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
USC
UCLA
Washington
Oregon
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Iowa
Arizona State
That would be a power league that could maximize revenue and rival the SEC.
But I doubt the Illinoises and Indianas and Utahs and Colorados of the world would be thrilled about that.
That’s why the talk of consolidation and cutting down to 40 or less schools is not such good news for the Big Ten. If you really want to do that, then a big chunk of the Big Ten needs to go. If you’re interesting in protecting Big Ten members, then the conversation should be more toward a 60 school system rather than a 40 school system.
LikeLike
That’s not how I’d calculate value. The problem with that analysis is that it’s not at all clear that that’s the proper way to calculate school value as it pertains to realignment.
State population, school size, (whether they’re in the same state as another school), all matter in my mind as well as raw fanbase size and fans in seats. Cable boxes still exist (78 million people still pay for that; that’s still going to affect this discussion for 2-3 decades).
I don’t think there’s a measurable difference between a school ranked outside of the top 20 and one ranked around 50 by those metrics.
There’s maybe 20 teams (probably less) that actually move the needle in terms of national eyeballs. The SEC goes from 7 to 9 (Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M, Tennessee). That’s still another 7 teams that aren’t really on the short list of national TV relevance.
Both the Big Ten and SEC have a bunch of teams that don’t matter nationally. There’s virtually no difference to a random viewer of when those teams play each other unless they’re ranked.
The fact that those Big Ten schools are all large publics (except Northwestern) that bring states/markets gives them value to this discussion.
LikeLike
Okay, sure, but same could be said of the Pac 12. Point is I don’t see how you can say Indiana and Purdue are valuable but Utah and Oregon State are not.
LikeLike
Andy,
1. Ordinal rankings of value are silly. It’s the actual values that matter.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
I’m just going to look at USA Today’s list of school’s AD revenue as a proxy of value.
1. $224M
5. $174M
10. $158M
20. $138M
30. $112M
40. $103M
50. $86M
60. $56M
The gap from #1 to #5 is the same as #10 to #40. The key is to be above the steep decline lower down. The entire B10 is in the top 39. SEC is in the top 37. The P12 has 5 schools in the 40s and 50s, with the last just at the cusp of the drop. The B12 has 5 in the 40s. The ACC has 3 below 40.
Note: It is only for public schools.
LikeLike
The issue is additive value. You have a fair point about Utah, but not about Oregon State and both Indiana/Purdue.
The Big Ten and SEC only each have 2 programs that bring little TV value to their leagues (Mississippi State and Vanderbilt in the SEC, Purdue and Northwestern in the Big Ten). I suppose you could say at least Vanderbilt/Northwestern bring academic heft and location (Nashville and Chicago), so that’s a plus for them. Mississippi State and Purdue just produce more extra SEC and Big Ten grads without adding extra footprint value.
If you have Washington/Oregon/Arizona in a conference, then Washington State/Oregon State/Arizona State don’t add much extra value to your TV contract. None are national brands, so they’d have to bring something else to the table, and they just don’t some large separate territory. You can actually argue the same thing about Stanford probably as well for the Pac-12. So that’s basically 4 out of the Pac-12, but I assume they’d go with the other Cali schools as a big block of 4.
Yeah I realize we’re in the business of measuring actual eyeballs now, but still schools that represent a state do a lot better in this type of metric.
The ACC has a problem with like a half the conference on this metric.
LikeLike
@z33k – Even as an Illini guy, I’ll defend Purdue here: they are the equivalent of a flagship (a true side-by-side school with Indiana as opposed to beneath them akin to a larger Georgia Tech) with excellent academics and a massive alumni base. To be more specific, if the Big Ten didn’t want Purdue, then the ACC (and probably even the SEC, although that may now change with the UT/OU addition) would take them in a second. Not having Purdue splits the Indiana market in a way that I don’t think is the case if you just have Ole Miss without Mississippi State. Purdue shouldn’t be compared to Mississippi State in terms of conference realignment value: they might be superficially seem superfluous in the context of the Big Ten itself, but they have a ton of value to other leagues where it wouldn’t make sense for the B1G to give them up.
LikeLike
Yeah Frank, I agree largely with what you’re saying.
But I also think that Purdue is more valuable to another conference than the Big Ten (if that makes sense).
I think the one thing we’ve learned in CFB conference expansion is that you want large publics with strong brands in new markets/territories.
SEC and Big Ten have followed that model the past 30 years: South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Texas, OU to the SEC; Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland to the Big Ten.
I also think people still underestimate how important markets are to this generally; cable boxes are still near 80 million; yes they’re decreasing, but there’s still going to be tons of people paying for Pay TV the next 30-50 years.
It’s not just about eyeballs on screens quite yet, and I doubt it will ever just be that, though maybe we get there.
There will be some sort of re-bundle-ization through streaming services like ESPN+ or Amazon Prime, and that’s where the value will be driven for schools like Indiana or Purdue to a different conference than the Big Ten (but of course neither is going anywhere just like Mississppi State isn’t leaving the SEC).
LikeLike
This is a reply more for Frank the Tank re his defense of Purdue – back in my 90s undergrad then grad at 2 B10s, I always thought greek-or-die Purdue had, along with OSU, a campus/scene that wouldn’t stick out like a sore thumb in the SEC. The blondest school in the Big 10, even moreso than the MN-IA-WI trifecta.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind, that seems like a strange comment about Purdue. With three Purdue Polytechnic High Schools up and running, I’d say Purdue is recruiting more inner city kids than any other D1 university in the country.
https://pphs.purdue.edu/
LikeLike
I’m amazed that Nebraska has managed to stay as high as they have, considering how bad they’ve been at football for the last 15 years or so. Missouri was top 25 in attendance for years in football and made one bad hire in Barry Odom and they drop all the way to 37th (33rd in this ranking). But Nebraska has made several bad hires in a row and they’re still top 20. Kudos to them. You would think Nebraska will finally get it turned around at some point, right? They can’t stay that bad with that kind of persistent fan support, can they?
Missouri is more fair weather. If Drinkwitz wins, I think they go back into top 25 level fan support. If not, probably not.
LikeLike
The really big brands have staying power, even during down periods. That’s why they’re kings. The older fans and announcers remember them when they were great and pass the feeling that they’re important on to younger fans.
LikeLike
I believe the same it true to an extent regarding rivalries/loyalties. One may really dislike, or even “hate” a team or three (usually in your conf) but they are among the biggest games you play and most enjoyable to win. This is what the major conferences that have close to, and in a number of cases over a century of history are risking with drastic realignment (as opposed to addition of an occasional school that has risen to the level desirable). It’s not just individual rivals, it’s the dna of the conference.
LikeLike
Yeah, the move to the SEC has overall strengthened Missouri, but there were some things lost as well. Missouri had 100 years of history with those old Big 8 schools. There was a lot of history with teams like Iowa State and Colorado, sure. But the big ones were Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Those were the big draws that would fill the stadium and get fans really excited. Missouri’s going to start playing Kansas again in the non-conference, finally. And now Oklahoma is joining the SEC and will most likely be in the same pod as Missouri. The one Missouri is not getting back is Nebraska, and that’s a real shame. That was a huge game every year. It’s looking like Missouri’s pod will be with Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. So they’ll need to develop rivalries with Texas and Arkansas to replace what they lost.
LikeLike
I think it will be easy to learn to hate UT.
LikeLike
For sure. Missouri has played Texas 24 times in football, so there’s already some history there. But competing with them directly in a pod every year should turn up the heat on the rivalry.
LikeLike
Missouri’s going to start playing Kansas again in the non-conference, finally.
It doesn’t exactly replace what was lost. They’ve got home & home with Kansas in 2025–26, and again in 2031–32. They have more future dates against Illinois than Kansas.
It’s looking like Missouri’s pod will be with Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. So they’ll need to develop rivalries with Texas and Arkansas to replace what they lost.
Every opponent circles the Texas game on their calendar. It doesn’t mean Texas does the same.
LikeLike
Oklahoma will be a rival because they’ve already played each other 96 times dating back over 100 years, and Oklahoma is entering a brand new conference with a bunch of schools they have very little history with. So Missouri and Oklahoma will be rivals by default.
Arkansas makes a fair amount of sense as a rival for Missouri as it is, and putting them in the same pod will help. Currently Missouri leads the series 9-3, but Arkansas should probably make it competitive at some point.
Texas won’t want to see Missouri as a rival, that’s true. But, having already played Missouri 24 times, that means they have more history with Missouri than all but 2 or 3 other SEC teams. And being in the same pod and directly competing for a pod championship every year necessarily elevates the importance of the games. But in the end it’ll be on Missouri to keep up competitively. If Texas continues to beat Missouri 75% of the time like they’ve done historically than it won’t be much of a rivalry. If they can do more like Kansas State has done (Kansas State is 10-9 vs Texas since the year 2000) then that would legitimize the rivalry more.
I believe the idea was for Kansas and Missouri to start playing annually again, but Missouri already had an 8 game series with Illinois as well as a series with Colorado and another with Kansas State, so there wasn’t room on the schedule yet to do it every year. But maybe at some point that will happen, depending on how things go. But with the SEC likely moving to 9 or 10 conference games per year it might become harder to do. Basketball should have no trouble being an every year thing going forward.
LikeLike
The PAC schools may have the greatest opportunity for growth out of any on the list. They have limited media coverage and the PAC network is a flop. Get them games in the 6:00pm time slot for the central/eastern time zones and additional coverage from BTN and they could provide more value then current rank.
LikeLike
So Sankey worked with Bowlsby on a CFP subcommittee (with no B1G and PAC 12 reps?) while surreptitiously negotiating the decapitation of his conference. And Bowlsby is nursing the dagger wound in his back from his old friend Castiglione. Bowlsby fires off a cease and desist letter to ESPN. The gloves are decidedly off. So I have a question, as the majority of you are way more knowledgeable and savvy than myself on this stuff: Would it be a feasible strategy for the Big 12 simply refuse to make an exit deal with OU & Texas now? It’s not like they need to preserve relationships with OU & Texas at this point–collegiality is out the window. The landscape in college football is shifting so fast now, who knows what would happen in 4 years to make this deal less appealing and fall through? I’m not making the case for pettiness and retribution, but rather asking, why not engage in a strategy of litigation and delay that could ultimately end up working to the benefit of the Big 12 by buying them more time? Especially if there is potential that their contractual payout gets reduced due to the loss in value after OU & Texas leave?
LikeLike
Would it be a feasible strategy for the Big 12 simply refuse to make an exit deal with OU & Texas now?
It’s not only a feasible strategy — I think it is their strategy. UT and OU applied to the SEC and were admitted on the basis of fulfilling their full contract with the Big 12 through 2025. No one yet from the conference or the two schools has mentioned any kind of settlement that gets them out early. It is only journalists and fans saying that.
There is no precedent for breaking a grant of rights. If the schools try to leave early, I cannot see what their options would be, other than to pay every penny they owe. I can’t see what incentive the Big 12 has to settle for anything less.
LikeLike
Agreed.
Will it be ugly in meetings and in stadiums? Sure. If you don’t like it, pay us $150M+ in penalties and/or leave your rights behind.
LikeLike
They could just leave in 2022 and the Big 12 would get only the $40 million it withheld from each and would have to sue to get anything else.
They will settle. I suspect UT and OU stay 2 more years in the Big 12 and leave 2 years early, paying the full $80 million in exit fees and ESPN makes some guarantee to keep the remaining 8 whole through the rest of the contract. Maybe some SEC games to boost up the value of the contract over the last 2 years.
No need for the lawyers to be the only ones who benefit.
LikeLike
They could, but if I was them I’d sue for every penny I’m owed. And maybe Fox would chime in. The B12 are also still partners with ESPN, so they could apply some pressure that way.
The lawsuit would also give the B12 a chance to get discovery and look for evidence against ESPN. Make it ugly, even if all the money goes to lawyers.
LikeLike
I think this is correct, bullet.
LikeLike
Speaking of Pac-12 expansion, take a look at BYU’s 2021 schedule. They play five PAC-12 teams including a season finale at USC. Regarding that USC game, I will copy ‘n paste from the article:
“The 2021 matchup with USC is the fourth in the series that started in 2003. BYU is coming off a 30-27 overtime victory in the last meeting when the Cougars downed the No. 24 Trojans on Sept. 14. 2019, in LaVell Edwards Stadium.”
2021 BYU Football Schedule
Date Opponent Stadium Location
Sat., Sept. 4 vs. Arizona Allegiant Stadium Las Vegas, Nevada
Sat., Sept. 11 Utah LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Sept. 18 Arizona State LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Sept 25 South Florida LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Fri., Oct. 1 Utah State Maverik Stadium Logan Utah
Sat., Oct. 9 Boise State LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Oct. 16 at Baylor McLane Stadium Waco, Texas
Sat., Oct. 23 at Washington State Martin Stadium Pullman, Washington
Sat., Oct. 30 Virginia LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Nov. 6 Idaho State LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Nov. 20 at Georgia Southern Paulson Stadium Statesboro, Georgia
Sat., Nov. 27 at USC LA Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles, California
LikeLike
Any chance Stanford pulls a U Chicago and decides the business of college sports is getting too dirty? The NIL stuff will make big time football and basketball in a semi-pro league(s).
LikeLike
I doubt it. They have 36 teams to support. And unlike Chicago, Stanford has been plenty competitive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And they just reversed their irrevocable decision to drop 11 sports and hired away Cornell’s wrestling coach (one of the top in the nation).
Might be an interesting back story on those decisions.
LikeLike
Ahem. That’s what we call pulling a Carnegie Tech
LikeLike
I’m curious how the SEC news will change how the 12 team playoffs in implemented.
If a team can’t be 1st or even 2nd in their own conference, why should they should they be given a spot to play for the national championship?
I would think it would be in the interests of all non-SEC conferences to have a low cap on the number of teams from each conference in the playoff. With a cap of 2 (maybe3) teams per conference, all non-SEC schools would benefit. At this point, even the B1G would benefit if they could raise MWC, AAC,BIG12 exposure at the expense of the SEC.
I would like to see the 4 top rated conference champs get a bye (as it is now).
I’d like the next 4 highest rated conference champs or independents (ND, BYU) host the opening round games. Opening round games would then tend to be 4 at large teams (likely power 5 schools) having to travel to Group of 5 conference champions. Those games would have a great atmosphere of “underdog conference” conference champion teams (and fans) wanting to show that they belong against likely power 5 opponents.
As a plus for ND, they would more than likely host an opening round game, because they would likely always be ranked higher than the 8th highest ranked conference champion (from somewhere like C-USA, Sunbelt, or MAC)
What the current proposed 12 team playoff misses is the underdog element that is always so fun to watch in March Madness.
LikeLike
Dave,
Play that out.
Top 4 champs get byes – let’s call those the SEC, B10, ACC and P12
Next 4 champs/ind. get home field – B12, AAC, MWC, SB/CUSA/MAC, ND, BYU, other
Should it really be that easy for an independent to get a home playoff game? They just need to outrank the SB, CUSA and MAC champs? That’s a pretty low bar in many years. Why do the independents get preference over an at-large from a conference?
The 6 champ rule guarantees the G5 at least 1 entrant without setting a low bar. It also doesn’t give an independent like ND an advantage over all the conference members. Trust me, people would throw fits if ND was blatantly given a leg up like that.
LikeLike
The relative strength and composition of conferences is affected by the current bowl/playoff format. The current format led to weaker group of 5 conferences and less independents.
If this new playoff format were to take place of a period of time, I would think dominant schools
in weaker conferences would have more of an incentive to stay put, with an easier path to appear in the playoff. The upper schools in lesser conferences would become more attractive places for athletes to attend school, and there wouldn’t be as steep a drop off to the MWC,AAC, and CUSAs of the world.
This playoff format still doesn’t allow independents to get a bye. And initially it may provide some incentive of other schools to seriously consider becoming football independents (UT, FSU), as some of the disincentives of independence would be gone. To host a play-in game ND would still need to outrank CUSA, SB, MAC, and BYU. If one treats the grouping of independents as a grouping for the purpose of playoff selection, joining the group of independents is a benefit, until that grouping becomes too strong.
Maybe to host a play-in game, maybe a team should actually have to win something (like their conference championship)
LikeLike
Dave,
TV money and scheduling difficulties (in all sports) long ago forced most independents to join conferences. It’s not going to go the other way. Likewise, TV money drove the top teams into better conferences. You can fight to win the SEC and make $80M per year, or you can cruise through the MAC for $1M per year plus some CFP money.
Independents can’t get byes, but they also don’t play in CCGs and risk a loss against a good team. After that first round, they will have played the same 13 games as every champ that got a bye. That why ND is fine with it.
LikeLike
If a team can’t be 1st or even 2nd in their own conference, why should they should they be given a spot to play for the national championship?
That was the argument against expanding. It seems that ship has already sailed. But for what it’s worth, most sports offer that opportunity.
With a cap of 2 (maybe3) teams per conference, all non-SEC schools would benefit.
Starting in 2025, it appears there will be just four power conferences. With a cap of two, you’d be reserving four of 12 slots for independents and non-power conferences. Why should they get such generous access, if they have not earned it on the field?
What the current proposed 12 team playoff misses is the underdog element that is always so fun to watch in March Madness.
But March Madness does not limit the number of teams per conference. In 2011, the Big East sent 11 teams. Their 11th-best team could (in theory) have won it all — exactly the idea you oppose for college football.
Although the basketball tourney allows the possibility of upsets, they committee doesn’t give underdogs an artificial boost, such as allowing them to host a game they haven’t earned. I realize there are no home games in the tourney, but top seeds have other advantages. Nobody has suggested taking those advantages away, in order to create even more upsets.
LikeLike
Marc,
The difference, of course, is that hoops has 68 teams so no conference can be more than 1/4 of it even if every team gets in. That’s equivalent to 3 teams in a 12-team CFP.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31922593/ncaa-sets-table-dramatic-overhaul-how-governs-college-athletics
The NCAA plans to meet in November to completely revamp how college sports are overseen.
The NCAA Board of Governors called for a constitutional convention in November on Friday with the goal of launching dramatic reform in the governance of college sports that could put changes in place as soon as January.
Stung for years by criticism that it is too heavyhanded and out of touch, the NCAA said it wants to “reimagine” how to more effectively manage the needs of its more than 450,000 athletes at more than 1,100 schools.
“As the national landscape changes, college sports must also quickly adapt to become more responsive to the needs of college athletes and current member schools,” Jack DiGioia, chair of the Board of Governors and president of Georgetown, said in a statement. “This effort will position the NCAA to continue providing meaningful opportunities for current college athletes and those for generations to come.”
A 22-person Constitution Review Committee with university presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors and students from Divisions I, II and III will be created to redraft the NCAA’s constitutional articles.
“This is not about tweaking the model we have now,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said. “This is about wholesale transformation so we can set a sustainable course for college sports for decades to come. We need to stay focused on the thing that matters most – helping students be as successful as they can be as both students and athletes.”
LikeLike
Realignment is on hold until after November
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-sports-3281efb20193646235ef7ab5a0a92c9f
LikeLike
Due to climate change, the Corn Belt is moving north. This has been going on for decades. Seed companies in western Canada are planning from a shift from wheat to corn in as little as five years. The nations of the vast Boreal Forest, a global ring of forestland that stretches from Scandinavia across Siberia thru Alaska to the Atlantic coast of Canada, are quietly giddy about a 40% increase of arable land by 2050.
Now, there are concerns that current population shifts from the Midwest to the South will continue into infinity. That won’t happen. The weather in the South will become increasingly hot and humid and miserable while the Midwest becomes increasingly more temperate. This humongous population shift will slow, stop and reverse.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-must-adapt-as-u-s-corn-belt-shifts-northward/
https://www.farmprogress.com/story-heart-corn-belt-moving-north-9-148167
https://seedworld.com/corn-belt-marches-north/
https://www.agupdate.com/illinoisfarmertoday/news/crop/corn-belt-moves-north-as-planting-practices-shift/article_da2df746-f994-11e8-ba1d-c3a39c0a4c35.html
LikeLike
On the other hand, that also means a lot of permafrost melting (and releasing huge amounts of CO2, increasing the problem) and coastal land being lost to the ocean. It’s already a problem in Alaska, with indigenous peoples losing their villages and their way of life as the ice melts too soon.
And much of this newly arable land in Canada belongs to indigenous people. Do they want to be corn farmers? Does it bring conflict as agribusiness wants to farm their land, or do they want the money?
LikeLike
Small town about 100 miles north of Vancouver, BC hit 121° just a few weeks ago. Then it burned down later that week from dry lightning sparked fire. Higher temperature than ever recorded in Miami.
I guess that truth is turning out to be rather inconvenient.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, the midwest could use all those people coming back from the south and west. Maybe living where there is fresh water will start to make sense to people again (looking at you, AZ and NV and …).
LikeLike
The permafrost will be “lost” to the northern advancement of the Arctic tree line and those trees will sequester far more carbon than frozen ground.
And do the Inuit want to be corn farmers? I don’t know but right now they have no choice. It’s fish or die.
LikeLike
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145880/permafrost-becoming-a-carbon-source-instead-of-a-sink
No, the trees won’t. As it thaws, bacteria are freeing tons and tons of “sequestered” CO2. And the coastal land is subsiding into the sea at an accelerating rate, so trees can’t grow there.
Winter carbon emissions from Arctic regions appear to be adding more carbon to Earth’s atmosphere each year than is being taken up by Arctic plants and trees. It is a stark reversal for a region that has captured and stored carbon for tens of thousands of years.
…
Scientists have estimated that permafrost stores more carbon than has ever been released by humans via fossil fuel combustion. These frozen soils have kept carbon safely locked away for thousands of years, but rising temperatures are making them thaw and release those greenhouse gases.
LikeLike
Brian, estimates are that the Arctic tree line will grow 300 miles further north by 2100 (link). That’s a lot of trees. However, for the purposes of this discussion, there is little doubt that Canada and the Midwest will grow warmer in the next century. The primary reason for migration from the Midwest to the Sun Belt is weather and the harsh winters of the Big Ten footprint will become more moderate.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arctic-green/trees-may-grow-500-km-further-north-by-2100-idUSTRE74B7B020110512
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Bolsonario just dramatically increased privatization of the rainforest. No amount of arctic tree growth can offset that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-29/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-land-grabs-surge-under-bolsonaro-in-brazil
LikeLike
Again, for the purposes of this discussion we’re talking about changing weather patterns in the Big Ten footprint, not the impact of climate change on planet earth. If you take a look at the map in the link below, the prediction is for a stunning shift in the Wheat Belt, and America’s Breadbasket, by 2050. Canada will experience a huge increase in arable land and large area of Alaska will be available for farming for the first time.
This means much warmer weather for the upper US and notably, milder winters. We’ll be experiencing the kind of weather that Tennessee has right now.
https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/americas-breadbasket-moves-to-canada/
LikeLike
Colin,
Forest is good in many ways, but the permafrost is a huge, huge store of carbon from tens of thousands of years. It is tens of feet thick
https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/earth-and-climate/climate-change-alaska/article-carbon-sinks-and-carbon-bombs
… Schuur’s research has discovered that there is about twice as much carbon stored frozen in permafrost soils as the atmosphere currently holds. “The next question that follows from that is how fast can this stuff come out, and how fast is it coming out now?” Schuur says.
The answer depends on how fast permafrost will thaw and how rapidly microbes can break down the organic matter, yet the expansion of shrubs in warming tundra areas could offset some of that release. Schuur’s current estimates predict that at least initially, plant growth in northern latitudes will be an effective sink for the excess carbon emissions from permafrost. After a few decades, however, a greener Arctic won’t be able to take up slack. Net carbon release from the world’s permafrost could approach 1 billion tons of carbon per year if widespread permafrost degradation were to occur—roughly equal to the current amount added annually by tropical deforestation.
LikeLike
Also
https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/85/2/161/527316
Forest soils and specifically those of the boreal region are a reservoir for long-term storage of boreal C and a significant contributor to global C storage (Jones et al., 2009) and therefore have the potential to greatly influence the global GHG balance as either a sink or a source. In fact, boreal forest ecosystems account for ∼50 per cent, or more, of world forest ecosystem C stocks compared with 14 per cent for temperate and 37 per cent for tropical systems (Malhi et al., 1999). Boreal forest soils also hold more total ecosystem C than is found in the overstory (Havas and Kubin, 1983; Gower et al., 1997; Schultze et al., 1999; Martin et al., 2005). Indeed, soil C in boreal ecosystems has been reported to account for about five times the total C in the standing biomass or ∼85 per cent of the total biome C (Malhi et al., 1999). Boreal forests account for ∼33 per cent of the total land area of the circumpolar region (Jones et al., 2009), but most of the C stored in high-latitude ecosystems is found within peat bog and permafrost soils (Tarnocai et al., 2009). Of all permafrost soils, about 40–55 per cent are found in boreal forests with the remaining portion found in the Arctic (Allison and Treseder, 2011).
But enough about this. Let’s stick to happier topics like how evil ESPN is and how to thwart the SEC’s plans for global domination.
LikeLike
Brian, the amount of carbon stored in the permafrost is trivial. You need to understand the big picture. If you go to “Marine Food Web” in Wikipedia, it provides an excellent explanation of the role of carbon and carbon dioxide in the earth’s ecosystems. The following paragraph was copied verbatim:
“If phytoplankton dies before it is eaten, it descends through the euphotic zone as part of the marine snow and settles into the depths of sea. In this way, phytoplankton sequester about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the ocean each year, causing the ocean to become a sink of carbon dioxide holding about 90% of all sequestered carbon.[2] The ocean produces about half of the world’s oxygen and stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere.[3]”
Stated another way, 10% of the sequestered carbon on earth is incorporated into the tissues of land vegetation (forests, crops, grasses, jungles) and you may as well include permafrost here too. The other 90% is in the ocean in the form of phytoplankton (live, dead, decayed, digested) that have sunken to the sea floor as sediment. Phytoplankton live for only a few days thus a bloom of these organisms becomes deposited on the ocean floor quite rapidly. A “marine rain” of these organisms and their remnants is continuously being deposited on the ocean floor and this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. This biomass of phytoplankton sediment eventually becomes decomposed and compressed into petroleum. Phytoplankton are actually the “fossils” from which the fossil fuels oil and natural gas are formed.
Also, only 2% on non-sequestered carbon aka carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. The other 98% is dissolved in seawater.
Clearly, the most natural and logical way to remove excess CO2 from our atmosphere is to nurture the growth of phytoplankton and increase their deposition into the ocean’s carbon sink. This strategy has been studied and appears to be effective. Those studies are summarized in the following link:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/complicated-role-iron-ocean-health-and-climate-change-180973893/
LikeLike
You weren’t talking big picture, you were talking about the noprth, the moving corn belt, arctic and boreal forests.
LikeLike
I think we will find out the B1G’s direction by June 2022. The leagues TV deal is through the 2023 fiscal year. For college that is a June 30 year end. I have yet to see a scenario where a league did not announce their new TV contract before the start of the last contractual year.
In June 2016 news broke of the Big Ten’s new TV deal. It took until the following summer for the formal release as it took awhile for Fox and ESPN to negotiate game selections etc.
In most cases expansion was timed with TV rights. Nebraska was added in the middle of a deal but the CCG and BTN were used to integrate.
Maryland and Rutgers leveraged BTN plus there was a lower payout schedule for 6 years. With the payouts where they are at now there is no way to make it work from a timing standpoint without aligning with the contractual Tier 1 TV rights.
Not a lot of time to work with.
LikeLike
@Frank – Sox included you in the Kimbrel Deal. Welcome to the Cubs. Here’s your new avatar.
LikeLike
Thanks WordPress.
LikeLike
Demographics are important yes, but they’re not the be all, end all in this discussion.
10-12 years ago, I used to think so, but if you look closely at the latest 2020 census, 3 states lost population over the past decade: Illinois, Mississippi, and West Virginia. Mississippi was a surprise to me.
Michigan’s population growth was basically similar to Ohio, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana. (Michigan actually performed over expectations imo based on what I was seeing after the 2008 recession).
States like Iowa and Indiana actually grew faster than a half of the SEC states.
Of course, the SEC has Florida, Georgia, and Texas; 3 large states growing robustly. South Carolina and Tennessee (for now) as well have strong growth, but the reality is just that a half of the states of the SEC (and the schools within those states) face similar pressures over the long run as most of the Big Ten.
Doesn’t mean that the Big Ten doesn’t need to get schools in some faster growth states, but if/once we do, I don’t think things are all that different demographically overall.
These things are going to change significantly over time; Covid and the housing bust show that; original projections 20 years ago were for the US to hit 450 million in population by 2050, that looks highly unlikely to happen now and more likely the US will be around 400 million.
I think things like climate change will also start to have a more dramatic impact on population shifts over the next 30-40 years as well.
Yes, there will continue to be a shift towards the coasts and Texas, but it doesn’t mean the rest of the country will depopulate, and eventually I think things will stabilize more or less.
Big Ten needs to figure out its strategy over the next 10-12 years, but that’s plenty of time. The big shifts will take a lot longer than expected imo.
LikeLike
@z33k: You’ve cherry-picked your statistics. For one thing, it is a mistake to look at growth rates. Yes, Iowa is growing faster than half of the SEC states. But that growth is on a very low base to begin with: the Big Ten does not need more of Iowa. Otherwise, it would have issued an invitation to Iowa State, which would accept in a heartbeat. Iowa’s growth rate is still below the U.S. average.
If the Big Ten cared only about growth rates, rather than absolute numbers, its next invitations would be to BYU and Boise State. Utah and Idaho both grew by more than 17% over the past decade, the only two states to do so.
Yes, I am sure Michigan was happy simply not to lose people over the last 10 years. But Michigan grew only 2% over the last decade, versus the U.S. average of 7.4%. It is still losing a seat in the House of Representatives, and so is Ohio. States in the Big Ten footprint are losing four U.S. House seats, whereas states in the SEC footprint are gaining four. The Big Ten is the only P5 conference that contains no states that gained U.S house seats.
The Big Ten has just one state growing faster than the U.S. average, but only barely: Minnesota, which grew 7.6% over the past decade vs. the average of 7.4%. Still, Minnesota slipped from 21st by population ten years ago to 22nd. The ACC has five states in its footprint that grew faster than Minnesota.
Yes, the SEC has a number of low-growth states, including one (Mississippi) that actually lost people. But it has four states growing at a blistering pace well above the rest of the nation (TX, FL, SC, and GA). And remember, that growth rate is on top of a huge base. When the Texas population grows by 15%, it’s a lot more people than if Iowa grows at that rate (not that Iowa did).
LikeLike
Marc,
“For one thing, it is a mistake to look at growth rates.”
Yes and no. Rates can be misleading, because fast growth from a low base still ends with a small total, but they can be useful for spotting trends. Unless old people are flocking to IA, growth is a good sign for their demographics.
“Yes, Iowa is growing faster than half of the SEC states. But that growth is on a very low base to begin with:”
IA is larger than AR and MS and growing faster than them.
“If the Big Ten cared only about growth rates,”
A claim nobody made ever.
“Yes, I am sure Michigan was happy simply not to lose people over the last 10 years. But Michigan grew only 2% over the last decade, versus the U.S. average of 7.4%.”
Remember when you said it’s a mistake to look at growth rates? TX and FL are huge. When they grow at high rates (15.9% and 14.6% over the past decade, respectively), it skews the national rate. Almost one third of all growth in the US was TX + FL. And CA added over 2M as well.
“It is still losing a seat in the House of Representatives, and so is Ohio.”
See thew growth of TX and FL.
“The Big Ten is the only P5 conference that contains no states that gained U.S house seats.”
So? That’s a poor measure because seats change in such large discrete steps. A seat may move over a few thousand people in one state vs another. You need to look bigger picture and note that this showed a much slower rate of the south and west gaining seats than previous decades. Heck, CA lost a seat and it is huge and growing pretty fast.
Changes from 1960 – 2020:
FL + TX + CA = +45
B10 footprint = -44 (average of -8 per decade until 2010, so -4 this time is better)
NY = -15
We’ve long known that people moved south and west. In part due to air conditioning, in part due to weaker unions leading to manufacturing jobs, in part due to retiring to warmer weather. But things change over time. Global warming (and the hurricanes, flooding, forest fires and drought it brings) could change things. Unions have lost power in the north, so labor prices are more similar. Cost of living in the south will rise and make things level.
Changes from 1960 – 2020:
MO + AR + TN + KY + LA + MS + AL = -6
SC (1) + GA (4) = +5
SEC footprint except FL and TX = -1
VA +1
NC +3
WA +3
OR +2
NV +3
UT +2
AZ +6
CO +4
The gains have been in the west outside of the big 3.
LikeLike
Remember when you said it’s a mistake to look at growth rates?
I was engaging the original post on its terms. Michigan is not a currently a great demographic story, regardless of which stat you use.
[U.S. House Seats are] a poor measure because seats change in such large discrete steps.
I would welcome a better measure. I cannot find one that makes the Big Ten’s demographics look good when compared to other power conferences’ footprints. However, I am open to suggestions.
LikeLike
We all know the B10 has some demographic issues.
Better news?
House seats in footprint:
SEC – 133 (but the big states are all split)
ACC – 132 (not the primary conference in states with 1/2 of the seats)
B10 – 118
P12 – 88
B12 – 52
It’s hardly the end of the world. The B10 still has 26.9% of the US seats.
LikeLike
Yes, my point is that if you add Cali/Oregon/Arizona/Washington/Colorado or Virginia/North Carolina/Georgia/Florida as potential markets/recruiting grounds/etc. to the Big Ten, then what do those numbers look like.
LikeLike
Marc, my point is that yes you need some anchors in big markets, but the rest of the footprint is more or less fine compared to the rest of the footprint in say the SEC.
The Big Ten has 2 paths to those markets: ACC or Pac-12. A big clump of 6-8 schools in fast growth markets basically would make the Big Ten equivalent demographically to the SEC. That’s the broader point I’m trying to make.
And I don’t think anything will change substantially in the next 10-12 years to prevent the Big Ten from doing that due to the current lead the Big Ten has over those 2 conferences.
Of course, maybe Phillips has a rabbit in his hat down in the ACC to pump up their value, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
So the B10 should grab Rice and end this narrative.
LikeLike
PA, WI, NJ and MI are all in the 13 states with the oldest median age. Only Florida in the SEC falls into that group. Big 10 states are in for slower growth. With Chicago and Minneapolis’s recent problems, that will hurt some of the Big 10’s growth pockets.
LikeLike
Yeah, but my point is largely that outside of a half dozen states in the South/Northwest you could probably say that about 20-30 states.
LikeLike
I saw Gene Smith’s comments about pausing on playoff expansion. Makes sense to me. No reason to give the entire postseason to one TV partner at a discount. Best to have multiple partners and the championship game rotated.
LikeLike
subscribe
LikeLike
Here are Gene Smith’s comments, as I do not see them above.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-says-pause-button-should-be-hit-on-cfp-expansion-others-fret-over-espns-grip-on-football/ar-AAMLrBb
Smith thinks that the expansion of playoffs needs to be put on hold. It appears that the actions of ESPN and the SEC have upset a few people. Good. Perhaps Sankey’s less than above board behavior will not be condoned.
The article states
“The combination of uncertainty in the environment and a building skepticism over the power being collected by ESPN and the SEC after recent realignment moves have prompted a more cautious approach to expansion. The exploration of growing from a four-team model to 12-team model was announced in early June and is being deliberated on, with a decision expected in the fall.
“I think the pause button should be hit,” Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told Yahoo Sports. “We need to evaluate the landscape and what it’s going to look like. We still need to evaluate the 12-team playoff. We don’t need to rush into that when there’s legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.
…
Other leaders around the country have expressed a skepticism toward the financial value of allowing ESPN to continue to be the sole owner of the most powerful rights in college football. The College Football Playoff is, essentially, a television contract with ESPN that runs through the 2025 season. ESPN owns all of it now, which includes three playoff games and other New Year’s six bowls.
“It’s behooves everyone not named the SEC and ACC [for the CFP rights to go to market],” said a Power 5 athletic director outside the Big Ten. “It’s in all of our best interest [of other leagues] to let the contract through and go to open market. Why would a streaming service want to bid on a league like the Big Ten or Pac-12 to carry the regular season if they are going to just hand it over to ESPN for the playoffs?”
Sankey’s reaction, pretty much that this is no big deal and the recent moves with OU and UT should not much matter.
“Sankey added: “I was never walking into this with an assumption that something would happen quickly. It has nothing to do with recent news. … If others want to continue to deliberate, that’s not a surprise. I could have foreseen that with no breaking news.”
LikeLike
It’s good to hear some of these people are starting to grow a spine. Maybe don’t agree to everything the SEC or ESPN wants for once. Recognize that ESPN is not a neutral party, they have a very vested interest in the SEC succeeding more than anyone else, and then maybe the ACC. They dabble in everyone else just in case.
LikeLike
Smith is apparently not contesting that the playoff ought to expand. This is wise on his part, given that his school would have been in the playoff every year, had the proposal been in place from the beginning.
He is just saying that other networks ought to be given the chance to bid on it, which I totally agree with. From the beginning, I thought that it was a long shot that all the parties would agree to tear up the contract before it expired.
LikeLike
Smith did say that they need to evaluate the 12 team playoff. To me that sounds as though everything is on the table.
The threat of staying at 4 teams, or 8 max, creates leverage to at the least limit teams from one league. In my opinion, a hard cap of four from one league is plenty and three would be better.
We have to keep in mind that ESPN will use everything that it has to maximize the number of SEC (and ACC?). If there are five SEC teams and two ACC, that is more than half of the playoff field. That is too many from the ESPN stable.
As Brian said, it is good to see someone with a spine and Smith is clearly speaking not just for OSU, but for the B1G. I would guess it will be 12 teams with a reasonable max limit from any conference and perhaps a couple more new twists. Certainly there is zero chance of ESPN getting a renewal with bidding for it.
If the UT, OU, move had been on the table before the “private meeting” involving Bowlsby, Sankey, ND, and a G5 team, the conversations likely would have been very different than they actually were.
LikeLike
The threat of staying at 4 teams, or 8 max, creates leverage to at the least limit teams from one league. In my opinion, a hard cap of four from one league is plenty and three would be better.
The threat of staying at 4 teams is totally non-serious. Smith, along with everyone else, recognizes that the current format is starving playoff access for all but a handful of teams. Sankey did not push it to 12 all by himself; there was broad consensus that that was the sweet spot.
I am sure that, even without the recent events, it is very likely that the proposal would have been tweaked somewhat. The issue Smith has been most vocal about — outdoor Northern games in December — has nothing to do with the SEC expanding. I thought it would be Southern teams complaining about that, not Ohio State. Whatever the disadvantage to the Buckeyes of playing in those conditions, the disadvantage to them is surely worse, as Smith has acknowledged.
Smith also probably knows that his leverage shrinks over time. To tear up the playoff contract and rewrite it, every party must agree. After 2025, there is no contract, which means one party alone cannot scuttle the whole deal. The remaining P3 could outvote the SEC if they are united, but there’s no assurance they will be: their interests do not necessarily coincide.
If the UT, OU, move had been on the table before the “private meeting” involving Bowlsby, Sankey, ND, and a G5 team, the conversations likely would have been very different than they actually were.
You’ve mischaracterized the so-called “private meeting.” There is a group of 12, which consists of the 11 FBS conference commissioners and the ND athletic director. That entire group agreed that a subcommittee would examine the playoff format and come back to them with a recommendation.
The subcommittee was Bowlsby, Sankey, the Mountain West commissioner, and the ND athletic director. The ND athletic director was also on the committee that devised the first playoff format. He didn’t seize that authority; the rest of them willingly chose him as their spokesman. I think Bowlsby and Sankey were chosen because the other three P5 commissioners are relatively new. The MWC commissioner was the token G5 rep.
Anyone who didn’t expect Texas to test the market when the B12 GoR approached expiration is a complete idiot. While the exact timing is sooner than a lot of us expected, the reality that it could happen was well known. The person who should’ve known that more than anybody was Bob Bowlsby. The fact he was taken utterly by surprise only speaks to his incompetence.
Had this been known earlier, I think the only difference is that Bowlsby wouldn’t have been on the committee.
LikeLike
Marc,
“The threat of staying at 4 teams is totally non-serious. Smith, along with everyone else, recognizes that the current format is starving playoff access for all but a handful of teams. Sankey did not push it to 12 all by himself; there was broad consensus that that was the sweet spot.”
I think Smith could live with staying at 4. It worked okay for OSU on the relative scale of things. That said, I agree most people seemed to want expansion.
“I am sure that, even without the recent events, it is very likely that the proposal would have been tweaked somewhat.”
Probably, but mostly at the detail level. Nobody was really picking out any major points of contention. By far the biggest thing Smith noted is that ESPN has a monopoly on the CFP and that’s not healthy. This UT and OU move stresses how risky it is to give ESPN an exclusive deal for the CFP. I think they were heading towards signing up again with ESPN without much thought until this happened.
“Smith also probably knows that his leverage shrinks over time. To tear up the playoff contract and rewrite it, every party must agree. After 2025, there is no contract, which means one party alone cannot scuttle the whole deal. The remaining P3 could outvote the SEC if they are united, but there’s no assurance they will be: their interests do not necessarily coincide.”
They need a unanimous agreement to sign the new deal, too. They can’t force it on anyone.
“You’ve mischaracterized the so-called “private meeting.” There is a group of 12, which consists of the 11 FBS conference commissioners and the ND athletic director. That entire group agreed that a subcommittee would examine the playoff format and come back to them with a recommendation.
The subcommittee was Bowlsby, Sankey, the Mountain West commissioner, and the ND athletic director.”
Yes, and Bowlsby would react differently after Sankey stole his kings. He would review every proposal in a different light. The others would have as well.
“Anyone who didn’t expect Texas to test the market when the B12 GoR approached expiration is a complete idiot.”
They didn’t test the market, they secretly jumped straight to the SEC. Probably with input from ESPN. The market would’ve included other options.
LikeLike
If you aren’t Alabama, Ohio St. or Clemson, you are for expanding the playoff. So Dabo and Gene Smith like things the way they are. Duh!
Pac 12 is just haggling for concessions. They need it more than anyone.
LikeLike
They need a unanimous agreement to sign the new deal, too. They can’t force it on anyone.
That is true, but when there is no active contract whatsoever, it is hard for one party to hold up everything, because something has to be done. In an extreme case, one or two parties can just get left out. That was what happened with the predecessor system to the BCS: everyone signed except the Big Ten and Pac-12. But when you are talking about tearing up an existing deal, any party can block progress by just saying no.
They didn’t test the market, they secretly jumped straight to the SEC. Probably with input from ESPN. The market would’ve included other options.
These negotiations usually start in secret, and stay that way until the news is leaked. If you’ve got a better phrase than “testing the market,” I’ll take it. Most conference switchers have a preferred destination, and if they get the offer they want, do not seriously consider others.
My larger point is that we all expected Texas to look at (one or more) other options as the GoR approached its expiration date. The timing is earlier than I expected, but not the fact that they did it. Nobody should be surprised, and the last person who should’ve been surprised (if he is at all competent) is Bob Bowlsby.
LikeLike
@Marc – This is where negotiation tactics get really interesting regarding the playoff.
A party can certainly decide to hold up the entire CFP deal and force it to go until the end of the current contract. That’s the ultimate hammer.
However, that party also has the *most* leverage in renegotiating the current contract now because it has that hypothetical hammer. If the current contract expires and the parties start from scratch, then that leverage is gone and they no longer have any veto power.
That’s why I believe the current contract is ultimately going to get renegotiated and extended. If the majority of the parties already agree that the overall structure (12-team playoff with the top 6 conference champs getting auto-bids) is ultimately what’s going to be the future, then they’re better off negotiating it now when they have unilateral veto power than they would be waiting until an entirely new contract is formed.
LikeLike
Marc,
Nobody is tearing up an existing deal. It continues until expiration unless a new deal replaces it. I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want open market bidding on whatever new deal is being proposed. It might delay higher payouts by a few years, but at what cost? If fox, nbc, cbs, (Amazon, Apple?) have a few more years to prepare there could be an actual bidding war.
“Had this been known earlier, I think the only difference is that Bowlsby wouldn’t have been on the committee.“
Had this been known there may have been a delay in forming the committee.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I noted this in my last post about the playoff proposal: no one can underestimate just how much revenue colleges (even ones that people would think are wealthy) lost in the past year. The pandemic was a (hopefully) once-in-a-century black swan event that completely upended the financial fundamentals of the higher education industry.
That’s why the powers that be seemed to be so willing to open up the deal now. Could they make more money by waiting and going to the open market? Absolutely. Do they want to wait until 2026 to start making more money? Absolutely not. Trust me – there are so many institutions that need that money *now* that they feel that they can’t afford to wait on such a low-hanging fruit of an instant revenue generator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank,
The problem with that theory is that ESPN has exclusive negotiating rights now. They can’t involve Fox or the streaming options until later. It hurts everyone to agree on a new CFP plan now.
LikeLike
Frank,
Yes there were major losses. But they can borrow money for free, virtually, and pay it back once the new deal starts. And a lot of schools reported they didn’t end up losing as much as they initially feared because they made cutbacks and some CFB was played.
I just don’t see them being that short-sighted after seeing how blatantly ESPN is tipping the scales. A new CFP couldn’t start until 2023 anyway, so what’s 3 more years?
LikeLike
Nobody is tearing up an existing deal.
Tearing it up is on the table. Of course, as it now stands, any of the numerous parties to the deal could scuttle that by simply saying no. As it approaches expiration, any naysayers will gradually lose power, because something must replace it.
I’m not sure why we wouldn’t want open market bidding on whatever new deal is being proposed. It might delay higher payouts by a few years, but at what cost?
I think it’s a virtual certainty that other networks will get a chance to bid after 2025. If the proposal is compelling enough, I could see the scenario where the deal gets torn up for just the remaining term. From the start, I thought that tearing up the deal was unlikely — there are just too many people who can stop it cold by saying no. Still, some folks are proposing that, so it’s possible.
Had this been known there may have been a delay in forming the committee.
My tea-leaf-reading is not that good, but I know there was broad dissatisfaction with the current system, because so many of the playoff berths were going year after year to just a few teams. The SEC’s move doesn’t change that problem. Perhaps it even makes it worse.
LikeLike
Marc:
“ Tearing it up is on the table.”
No, it is not. Are several conferences going to suddenly say they are out and try to market and play their version of post season while this contract governs? That’s tearing it up.
“ that a subcommittee would examine the playoff format and come back to them with a recommendation.”
They did, and now we understand better some influences that informed them. There is no commitment given to accept those recommendations.
“ Anyone who didn’t expect Texas to test the market when the B12 GoR approached expiration is a complete idiot.”
I’ll add that to my resume. As I’ve said for near a decade I didn’t think UT would be able to move without TT and the only place TT and OkSt could go was the Pac as concessions to gain OU/UT. Plus, I believed what bullet had espoused that having their own individual LHN was important enough for it to run through its contract. It also stabilized the B12 in an “extortive” kind of way that ESPN appeared to support. I had not anticipated the brashness of ESPN’s intent to get into the business of reorganizing the landscape of the college athletics that they were purportedly covering/broadcasting as a media “partner.”
“ timing is sooner than a lot of us expected, the reality that it could happen was well known.”
Yes, and with the egos in Austin there were some that a GOR challenge could happen whenever, but most felt that very unlikely, too.
LikeLike
“ I think it’s a virtual certainty that other networks will get a chance to bid after 2025”
If the recommendations are accepted the absolutely won’t. You think ESPN’s doing this without getting a long term extension? Now that really would surprise me.
LikeLike
ESPN would be leaving money on the table if they don’t re-work the deal.
They would prefer a long term extension. But it could be no extension or it could be a 3 to 6 year extension.
LikeLike
Frank, please give covidapalozza a miss this year.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Yeah, I try to avoid downtown Chicago during Lollapalooza week in a normal year. (Not being a hater – I know I would have wanted to go there if I was a teenager again.) I watched some of the Lolla coverage streaming on Hulu and it’s totally packed in like it would be in a pre-pandemic year. The COVID numbers had already been spiking in the Chicago area again in the past couple of weeks, so this isn’t a great time for a massive concentration of tens of thousands of people (including a ton of out-of-town tourists) in one place in Grant Park.
LikeLike
Just got back from a trip to Montana/Wyoming/Dakotas. Every place was packed. Airports were packed. Hotels had no vacancies. Restaurants didn’t have enough help to serve people. Everybody is stir crazy and ready to get back to normal. Barring some change, I expect football stadiums to be packed.
My wife was talking about going to Charlotte for Georgia-Clemson, but is now starting to have 2nd thoughts. We (and especially her) were pretty conservative from March 2020 until April. Other than 3 or 4 essential repairmen, didn’t have anyone in our house until the end of April and didn’t travel.
LikeLike
You mean something like the Delta variant being more contagious than chicken pox and half of America refusing to get vaccinated?
LikeLike
I posted this way up above but so it doesn’t get lost I’ll post it here too. Brian pointed out to me that AAU rankings are roughly federal grant dollars per faculty member, so I attempted to roughly calculate those for the schools that are either at risk fo getting kicked out of the AAU or P5 schools that have at least some hope of joining:
These seem to be the schools of interest, schools at risk of getting kicked out and P5 schools that would like to get in. Federal research dollars and full time faculty counts:
Missouri $107M in 2017, I’m hearing it’ll be at least $150M to $180M after $260M in recent capital investments in medical research at Mizzou. 1200 full time faculty.
Kansas $85M. 1300 full time faculty
Iowa State $125M. 1500 full time faculty.
Oregon $57M. 1100 full time faculty
Oregon State $157M 1400 full time faculty.
Arizona State $214M. 2100 full time faculty.
Nebraska $99M. 1300 full time faculty.
Oklahoma $70M. 1300 full time faculty.
Wake Forest $147M. 600 full time faculty.
Miami $193M. 1100 full time faculty.
NC State $213M. 1700 full time faculty.
Virginia Tech $181M. 1900 full time faculty
Georgia $153M. 2100 full time faculty
Kentucky $168M 1400 full time faculty
LSU $80M. 1300 full time faculty
So I realize there are probably several other universities making major capital investments for the purpose of staying in/getting into the AAU, but the only one I have specific information on is Missouri, and I’m trying to be pretty conservative on the projection.
Here are the rankings of the ratios, number is federal grant dollars per full time faculty member:
1. Wake Forest 245k
2. Miami 175k
3. Missouri projection after new investments: at least 125k, maybe as much as 150k
4. NC State 125k
5. Kentucky 120k
6. Oregon State 112k
7. Arizona State 102k
8. Virginia Tech 95k
9. Missouri in FY17 89k
10 Iowa State 83k
11. Nebraska 76k
12. Georgia 73k
13. Kansas 65k
14. LSU 62k
15. Oklahoma 54k
16. Oregon 52k
Some observations:
1) It looks like Missouri will probably retain AAU status due to their recent investments in medical research.
2) Kansas and Oregon have a lot of work to do to avoid getting kicked out. I believe Kansas is scrambling like Missouri is and they are making improvements, but I don’t know the details.
3) It looks like I was wrong about Georgia. They are not particularly close to getting into the AAU, and neither are Oklahoma or LSU.
4) Kentucky actually looks like the SEC’s best bet for a 6th AAU school.
5) Wake Forest and Miami should be in the AAU.
LikeLike
For reference, here are the other AAU B1G and SEC schools
Michigan $882M 6200 full time faculty
Northwestern $438M 3300 full time faculty
Michigan State $329M 2500 full time faculty
Wisconsin $552M 2200 full time faculty
Minnesota $448M 2100 full time faculty
Iowa $236M 1300 full time faculty
Maryland $361M 2000 full time faculty
Rutgers $316M 2200 full time faculty
Ohio State $427M 2300 full time faculty
Indiana $241M 2000 full time faculty
Purdue $225M 2000 full time faculty
Penn State $477M 3000 full time faculty
Illinois $334M 2300 full time faculty
Florida $314M 2300 full time faculty
Vanderbilt $442M 1500 full time faculty
Texas $337M 2800 full time faculty
Texas A&M $294M 2800 full time faculty
Ratio rankings, federal research grant dollars per full time faculty member:
1. Vanderbilt 294k
2. Wisconsin 250k
3. Minnesota 213k
4. Ohio State 185k
5. Iowa 181k
6. Maryland 180k
7. Penn State 159k
8. Illinois 145k
9. Rutgers 143k
10. Michigan 142k
11. Florida 136k
12. Northwestern 132k
13. Michigan State 131k
14. Texas 120k
15. Indiana 120k
16. Purdue 112k
17. Texas A&M 125k
Observations
1) this formula seems to give some wacky results. Vanderbilt seems way high. And a school like Michigan, who is obviously a research powerhouse, ends up kind of low on the list.
2) It looks like after the $260M in capital investments in research, Missouri will probably be more in line with the bottom portion of this list, which again, to me would seem to indicate they will probably not lose AAU status. Maybe Kansas and Iowa State can catch up? I doubt Oregon can.
LikeLike
Texas A&M should be $105k research dollars per full time faculty member. $125k is a typo.
LikeLike
To be extra pessimistic and conservative on Mizzou’s numbers, say they only get up to about $140M in federal dollars and let’s say their number of faculty increases by 100 to do it. Again, this is worse than what I’ve been told, but just to be conservative. That would still be $108k federal dollars per full time faculty member. I don’t think they’d be as safe in that scenario, but they’d rank similar to Purdue and Texas A&M and substantially above where Nebraska/Iowa State/Kansas/Oregon were so probably decently safe from getting kicked out.
LikeLike
Andy, it makes a big difference if they have a medical school on campus, especially a small school with a medical school on site. That’s what Vandy has.
Large universities with no medical school, e.g. Purdue, aren’t going to be very high on that list.
LikeLike
@Colin, got it. And I’m sure that really hurt Nebraska. Missouri has a medical school and they’re doubling down on that with a lot of investment, like I said above. Kansas has a medical school so I’ve got to think they’re probably doing the same thing, but I don’t know the details.
LikeLike
As I understand it, that was THE issue that nailed Nebraska. Their medical school was part of the UN-Omaha campus rather than the Lincoln campus and someone made a stink about it.
LikeLike
If that’s all it was then maybe nobody else will get kicked out. But Missouri hasn’t felt safe and are taking major action, and I would think Oregon, Kansas and Iowa State would as well.
LikeLike
Andy,
Normalized competitive federal research is one of 4 main metrics for the AAU. They also use National Academy members, number of major awards won (Nobel, Fields, etc.), and number of citations of their research papers. Each normalized metric is ranked, then they take the average. The schools are then ranked by that average.
You can find most of the data in the CMUP report I linked earlier, but the CMUP doesn’t normalize. It does list how many faculty members there are, though. Scroll down to where it shows the top 200 research schools and you will see it.
And that’s another key point. There are official definitions of who count, so your numbers may be off.
LikeLike
I see. I don’t know if I’m up for that much work. Well, I think I got a rough estimate, anyway, by dividing federal dollars by full time faculty. It’s probably not exactly correct but gives a general idea of roughly where all these schools stand. And Bullet gave more details below which helps get a better idea of it.
It sounds like there were originally about 7 AAU members who were scoring low in this ranking system. Nebraska was the lowest and was kicked out, then came Syracuse who left voluntarily. It seems likely based on my calculations that the next lowest on the list is probably Oregon, so they were probably #94. Kansas seems to be the next lowest, so they were probably #87. Then Iowa State at #83. Then probably Missouri at #81. I’m not sure who would be #76. Stony Brook? Purdue? Virginia? Rice? I’m not sure.
So then looking at the ratios and what’s expected to happen with Missouri’s federal research numbers and faculty, a pessimistic scenario would put their federal dollars to full time faculty ratio at about where Oregon State was. And Oregon State is listed on Bullet’s ranking below at #67. So that would be about a 14 spot increase, which I think makes sense given thee investment Missouri is making. So I think roughly we can say Missouri was probably at #81, and probably will increase approximately to around #67. Would they be safe from getting kicked out of the 66 member AAU at that point? I would think so, yes.
And it sounds like neither Kentucky or Georgia are particularly close to eligible for joining, according to Bullet’s list below. Looks like the next two new members will be Wake Forest and Miami.
LikeLike
I don’t see citations metrics in the document you linked. I do see National Academy and Awards, but as you said they’re not normalized and I’m not going to go through all the work to normalize them. It looks like on National Academy members, Missouri does fairly well, as does Oregon, and Kansas does relatively poorly, as does Nebraska. For Awards Missouri doesn’t do as well, and Iowa State does quite well.
Just looking at that, I’m more convinced that Kansas is one of the lowest ranked AAU schools, probably #94 or #87 and Oregon is the other one, and Missouri is probably either #81 or #83 and Iowa State is the other one.
LikeLike
Like I said, most of the data is there. And it’s not worth my effort to normalize the data either. That’s why I keep quoting the old numbers.
I think everyone is safe for a while. I don’t think the membership liked what happened so they’ll wait a while before doing it again. But I agree that MO should be safe as long as they keep making the effort. KU and UO face a bigger struggle, but they are still well ahead of where NE was before they got voted out..
LikeLike
To me it’s about more than just not getting kicked out. If Missouri wants to be a legit research university then they shouldn’t be behind schools like Hawaii, Alaska Fairbanks, Wayne State, and New Mexico in these rankings. They’re basically AAU in name only as long as they’re ranked that low. These investments that they’ve been making, if they get them up into the 60s in the rankings, and it seems like that’s what’s going to happen, then at least they’ll be more deserving of the designation.
LikeLike
At the time Nebraska was kicked out, they were 109 and Syracuse 105 in their rankings. The next lowest schools were #94, #87, #83, #81 and #76. AAU schools were not identified by name, but non-members were. Schools eligible for admission (* means they have since been admitted):
31 Georgia Tech *
37 Boston U. *
37 Dartmouth *
40 UAB
43 UMBC
49 Utah *
52 UC-Santa Cruz
55 RPI
57 Wake Forest
59 Miami, FL
61 UI-Chicago
62 Cincinnati
64 Colorado St.
67 Oregon St.
68 GWU
69 New Mexico
72 Wayne St.
72 UC-Riverside
76 Alaska-Fairbanks
78 VCU
79 Vermont
79 Hawaii
81 UConn
83 Georgetown
83 Delaware
86 SUNY-Albany
Of the schools you mentioned, OU was 91, UK 96, UGA 110 and LSU 112. Its clear that some of these schools are ranked highly because of their medical schools and wouldn’t be admitted (see UAB and UMBC).
LikeLike
Based on my calculations above, I’ve got to think Oregon is probably #94, Kansas is probably #87, Iowa State is probably #83, and Missouri is probably #81. I don’t know who #76 is.
And as I said, Missouri just opened a $250M medical research center and have putting a bunch of investment into medical research, so they should move up at least 10 to 20 spots, so they’ll probably end up somewhere in the 60s or worst case low 70s.
I have to think Kansas is doing something similar but I don’t know the details.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that Kansas, Missouri, or Oregon are in any significant danger of being expelled from the AAU. The university presidents are, in general, a fairly collegial group, and I suspect that the very public controversy that ensued from their only ejection of a member is not an experience that they relish repeating. As long as a current member is clearly making good faith attempts to improve their academic programs and avoids adopting the Perlman defense tactics their membership card should be secure.
LikeLike
That may be true, but even if they’re safe no matter what, it’s far preferable to be in the 60s in those rankings than in the 80s or 90s. As I said above, if you’re ranked below Wayne State, Alaska Fairbanks, and New Mexico, are you a legit AAU institution, or are you basically just AAU in name only? I’m glad Missouri is taking steps that should push them up into the 60s or higher in the rankings. That way they’ll actually be legitimately deserving of their long held AAU membership.
LikeLike
Donald,
Around 2000, both Catholic University and Clark University were persuaded to decide to leave the AAU just as Stony Brook and TAMU were being invited in. Around 2010 Syracuse was persuaded to make the same decision and NE was forced out, just as they added GT and Boston U.
The AAU around 2019 added 4 more schools, so they may be looking to trim the fat again. In 2019 they attempted to kick out the 2 Canadian schools by changing the membership criteria to being a US school, but the members forced the AAU to reverse that decision. The AAU really doesn’t like to grow larger, so the bottom few should be concerned.
Think of it like GE’s infamous rule of firing the bottom 10% of their workers every year.
LikeLike
Brian, I had not heard about the Canadian school issue, but then the members did reject this plan (was it a membership subcommittee that proposed this change to the organization?). I knew that the AAU had been quietly pruning the list of schools that had fallen far off of the scale and had decided not to maintain the level of research programs expected for a member. Perhaps you are correct about the 10% rule, but given that Nebraska, which was clearly an outlier in the AAU given their new membership criteria, failed to remain in the group by only one vote even after an incredibly inept defense, I don’t believe that if Kansas et al are making serious attempts at upgrades that they will pressure the Jayhawks to resign. With the recent significant expansion in the membership we’ll probably soon know whether the AAU is going to attempt to maintain a fixed number of members.
LikeLike
I’m guessing if a university makes significant upgrades and can show that they are significantly improving their standing they’ll be fine. But if they’re ranked in the 80s or 90s and showing little to no progress they’re probably at risk.
I honestly don’t know what Kansas, Iowa State, and Oregon are up to. It seems likely that they are making upgrades like Missouri is but I don’t actually know.
LikeLike
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/08/american-research-university-association-proposes-then-abandons-plan-expel-canadian
You can read about the Canada issue here. The membership committee recommended it to the board of directors and the board approved it. They wrote a letter to McGill and Toronto telling them they were going to be removed, then the AAU were forced to reverse their position within days by the other members.
Yes, it was clear that the AAU members are divided on what the membership criteria. After NE, some said it was disappointing that the criteria had become quantified. Basically, they liked it as an old boys club.
The AAU does say that if your numbers aren’t good, the next best thing is to have positive trends. So if KU is catching back up, they’ll be fine. But if they grow research at 5% while the rest of the AAU grows at 10%, they’re in trouble.
LikeLike
Brian, thanks very much for the link. I am quite surprised that the AAU Board of Directors would accept such an extreme recommendation and begin implementation without first consulting the entire membership!
LikeLike
Interesting interview with Tim Brando on realignment:
LikeLike
Basically his take is that the Big 12 can probably keep their automatic playoff bid if they can hold together and add a couple of teams. Then they could split that playoff money 10 ways and make decent money.
LikeLike
Here’s a scenario I could see happening sooner rather than later:
SEC acquires a majority subset of the ACC for football (8 out of 14, which I imagine would facilitate dissolving the grant of rights), yielding 24 teams:
Alabama
Clemson
Georgia
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida
LSU
Texas A&M
Florida State
Auburn
Miami
Tennessee
Arkansas
Ole Miss
Miss State
South Carolina
Missouri
Kentucky
Va Tech
North Carolina
NC State
GA Tech
UVA
Vanderbilt
Meanwhile, the B1G acquires the nine AAU members of the Pac-12 plus Iowa State (also AAU), also yielding 24 teams:
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
USC
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Oregon
Washington
Iowa
Mich State
Stanford
Cal
UCLA
Iowa State
Northwestern
Minnesota
Indiana
Purdue
University of Arizona
Colorado
Utah
Maryland
Rutgers
Illinois
Notre Dame and BYU stay independent, bringing the total to 50 teams.
LikeLike
It could happen, but I will say that the one certainty in all this is things will probably end up messy, i.e. one conference at 22-26, the other at 18-20 or something like that if the ACC and Pac-12 both implode and lose their most valuable members.
The power programs and other programs with markets are just not distributed in a way that makes for a clean split.
And we’re at the point where it’s getting very hard to justify additions without bringing a combination of national brands and markets.
LikeLike
If you are going to take 8/14 or 9/12, you are better off just merging. It would be a lot quicker, cheaper, and cleaner. It could be done this calendar year and implemented for 2022. Trying to split up a conference that has a GOR going to 2036 is sheer nonsense.
LikeLike
Bob,
Quicker right now, yes. But if you wait until the P12’s rights deal is about to end, the B10 could theoretically do this quickly. But my problem with that is the B10 has never added more than 2 schools at once, always choosing to take time to assimilate new entries (like the pause after NE). Would the B10 be willing to add 8-9 teams at once?
Cheaper? The B12 and P12 deals are about to end. Only the ACC would require a long wait. But while talking money, the B10 members would lose money by adding the entire P12 rather than just the best brands and bigger states.
Cleaner? For whom? I think it would actually be messier in some ways because the tendency would be to keep the 2 separate. That’s just a joint TV deal. A merger implies equality, and then the two sides fight for supremacy of the culture or just stay separate. An acquisition clearly adds new members to the existing group and expects them to assimilate.
I agree that trying to breakup the ACC right now seems crazy.
LikeLike
There’s no financial incentive, though, for one league to acquire another in whole. And this whole shake-up is about finance, so leagues are only going to do what is in their financial self-interest. It is NOT in the SEC’s financial interest to acquire the ACC whole. But it may be in their (and ESPN’s) interest to do something like what I’m positing.
“Nonsense” or otherwise, it’s foolish to think that high revenue schools are just going to stand pat for the next 15 years tied into a substantially under-market revenue deal. Respectfully, I think that’s what is nonsense.
LikeLike
“Nonsense” or otherwise, it’s foolish to think that high revenue schools are just going to stand pat for the next 15 years tied into a substantially under-market revenue deal.
When you sign a bad deal for 15 years, you are stuck with that deal. You cannot get out, simply because you wish you hadn’t done it.
No one yet has found a way out of a GoR, and the breakage costs are in the stratosphere. You could imagine Texas and Oklahoma (or their TV partners) “eating” the costs for a year or two, but not FSU and Clemson eating 15 years’ worth.
If they knew then what they know now, maybe FSU and Clemson wouldn’t have signed. But if they wanted the deal’s benefits, they had to accept its risks too, which they did.
LikeLike
I do not believe that anything like this could happen, but it makes much more sense than a 32 team super league. Far less likely opposition from Congress, since only a few teams are really hurt, as opposed to many states being involved.
As far as ending the ACC grant of rights, if the SEC wanted a merger with the ACC, it could happen since they are both with ESPN. I do not see what is in it for the SEC, unless it is just size.
This certainly leads to some interesting ACC questions. Is Duke really going to be left in the dust? Would the ACC leave behind Wake, which is a founding member?
I also can not imagine the screaming from Syracuse, Pitt and BC, who left the Big East and finalized its implosion. Had these three stayed in the Big East and added a team or two, the conference probably would have survived as a P6 group. In addition to those three, there was Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, UConn, Rutgers, and ND as a non-football member (And after the seriously bad blood between the remaining BE members and those who left, there would a serious amount of Schadenfreude in the northeast.)
The last ACC team left out is Louisville, but they were left in the lurch after the BE collapse, before being saved by the ACC.
Of course for idle speculation, I guess that this is as good as any.
LikeLike
A superleague shouldn’t face congressional problems if it was set up correctly. It’s essentially just a new conference. If the SEC is legal with 16 teams, then the College Football Conference with 32 members is legal.
LikeLike
Brian, a super league of 32 teams would, of necessity, remove teams from at least 20 states (and perhaps more), where universities have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in football and other facilities that will no longer be viable. That is state money.
It is not that those schools would go to another P5 conference, they would be related to a league where their income goes from multiple tens of millions per year to a tiny fraction of that.
Among those 20+, I count states that have two P5 schools and will lose one if there is a super league. If Oregon goes to a super league and Oregon State is gone because of a monopoly of 32 schools, what will the Congress critters from Oregon do? How much will the State of Oregon lose. It is not simply that the PAC is breaking up and O State has nowhere to go, it is this is happening all over the country.
How about Pennsylvania? Will it be OK to watch Pitt collapse because PSU makes the cut? I kind of doubt it.
Then of course states like NY (though Cuse is not a state school), NJ and a bunch of others will be totally left out. I know that in NJ priority number 1 for Senators Booker and Menendez would be to stop this if they wanted to be reelected.
Will the Senators and Representatives from Alabama support this because both Auburn and Bama make the cut? I kind of doubt that they would want this fight. This is clearly a matter where those who get burned will be very motivated to act and Congressional people from states that are not hurt will be much less interested in the fight.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Brian, a super league of 32 teams would, of necessity, remove teams from at least 20 states (and perhaps more), where universities have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in football and other facilities that will no longer be viable. That is state money.”
Remove them from where? Schools change conferences all the time. And if it is only 32 teams, there’s no reason the rest should stop being viable. Maybe they can’t spend $70M on just their football team anymore, but they can still persist. The NFL’s existence doesn’t stop CFB from making money.
Also many states aren’t included in P5 football already: AK, HI, ID, WY, MT, ND, SD, NV, NM, DE, RI, CT, ME, NH, VT. I don’t see them on the rampage.
State money? Lots of I-A school are private, and most state schools pay for athletics with donor money and TV revenue. There’s very little state money involved.
And it’s entirely possible that the 321 teams would be passing on a lot of extra revenue via multiple pathways:
1. Paying their former conference to let them stay a member for everything else.
2. The CFP gives money to everyone. The superleague could also do that as a way to share the wealth. These teams probably would still want some OOC games to keep rivalries alive, so they need to keep everyone happy.
3. Promotion/relegation
“It is not that those schools would go to another P5 conference, they would be related to a league where their income goes from multiple tens of millions per year to a tiny fraction of that.”
1. Would they?
2. So? Who promised them infinite football money just for existing? Schools missed out on the B12 and survived. Schools couldn’t make the I-A cut and survived. Some schools dropped scholarships or even the whole sport and survived.
“Among those 20+, I count states that have two P5 schools and will lose one if there is a super league.”
Why? If Iowa makes it, ISU was barely holding on to a spot in a dying P5. What was lost? School with no football brand generally suck at football and invest very little in it, so their congresspeople have no reason to get upset.
“If Oregon goes to a super league and Oregon State is gone because of a monopoly of 32 schools, what will the Congress critters from Oregon do?”
Nothing. They know OrSU doesn’t deserve to be in the top 32. Elite football isn’t a right.
“How much will the State of Oregon lose.”
Nothing. The state might make even more, it just will be split differently.
“It is not simply that the PAC is breaking up and O State has nowhere to go, it is this is happening all over the country.”
They don’t need to go anywhere. Most of the P12 would be left out with them. They could play a round robin of quality football.
“How about Pennsylvania? Will it be OK to watch Pitt collapse because PSU makes the cut? I kind of doubt it.”
Is it the 70s still? Pitt fell apart a long time ago. And PA only sort of has state schools anyway. The Steelers play in Heinz Field, so the stadium will be fine.
“Then of course states like NY (though Cuse is not a state school), NJ and a bunch of others will be totally left out.”
NY is essentially out already and nobody cares.
“I know that in NJ priority number 1 for Senators Booker and Menendez would be to stop this if they wanted to be reelected.”
Stop free enterprise on what basis, exactly? We don’t like who the winners are, so it should be illegal? NJ went decades with no elite football and nobody complained.
“Will the Senators and Representatives from Alabama support this because both Auburn and Bama make the cut?”
Yes. But they also don’t need to support it. It’s just more realignment. Besides, congress couldn’t get the votes to do anything even if they wanted to. Between winners and losers, red and blue this would just devolve into news bites and hissy fits.
LikeLike
Those 15 states you mentioned out of the P5 are the 11 smallest, 13th, 15th, 19th (NV) and 22nd (CT). WV and NE are the smallest states in the P5. If you start knocking out bigger states, it matters both to the states and to the TV partners.
LikeLike
To state the cliche, change is always difficult. But I think it’s foolish to believe that the highest level of college football is going to willingly keep the amount of dead weight around that exists right now. While it made some sense until two weeks ago to think that perhaps the future was 66 teams (power 5 plus ND and BYU), the SEC just killed that notion. IMO, it’s a stretch to think that any more than two schools (Iowa State and maybe WVU) from the remaining Big XII will survive. No major league has a financial incentive to add any of the others, and while one or more of the G5 leagues might be tempted, doing so won’t make them a major conference.
In sum, the bloodletting has commenced, and anyone with open eyes should see that.
LikeLike
I think it’s foolish to believe that the highest level of college football is going to willingly keep the amount of dead weight around that exists right now. While it made some sense until two weeks ago to think that perhaps the future was 66 teams (power 5 plus ND and BYU), the SEC just killed that notion.
There are no reports that the SEC intends to axe Vanderbilt or Kentucky, both of which are dead weights in football. Kentucky has a great basketball program, but football is 85% of the TV revenue in college sports.
After the dust settles, the Big Ten is still going to be pretty close to the SEC in payouts per school. Nobody in the Big Ten is talking about kicking out their “dead weight” programs, either. If it’s so foolish for these programs to exist, the folks in authority would be talking about giving them the axe. Yet, they are not.
LikeLike
It seems you haven’t followed this particular sub-thread. The “dead weight” I referenced was from the Pac-12, ACC, and Big XII. I expressly excluded any loss of existing SEC or B1G teams in the two mega conferences I posited.
LikeLike
And as Frank has pointed out, the number of teams in power conferences has changed very little.
Houston, SMU, Rice and TCU got relegated. Later Louisville, Cincinnati and USF got brought up and Temple got kicked down. TCU came back and Utah moved up. Cincinnati and USF got put back down. Net result of the last 30 years–4 schools in pro markets (UH, SMU, Rice, Temple) moved down and Utah and Louisville moved up. And Rice and Temple had been marginal since at least the 60s.
Maybe there will be a “mezzanine” conference, but they aren’t going to push down a bunch of schools until the pay for play forces schools to commit or drop a level on their own.
LikeLike
Peter,
“SEC acquires a majority subset of the ACC for football (8 out of 14, which I imagine would facilitate dissolving the grant of rights),”
Why would the other 6 agree to dissolve the GoR when there are hundreds of millions in penalty fees coming to them if they stay?
Who is financing this? The SEC would lose money (per school) with some of these additions. Why add VT and UVA, when just UVA gets them VA? Are they taking a loss to keep from splitting VA with the B10? Okay, that’s possible despite the B10 clearly not wanting VT (non-AAU). But UNC and NCSU? The B10 wouldn’t take NCSU and they already own VA. Likewise, GT could only be a blocking move because UGA owns GA, including Atlanta. And both FSU and Miami when they already have UF?
“Meanwhile, the B1G acquires the nine AAU members of the Pac-12 plus Iowa State”
Again, who is paying for this? The B10 has no use for ISU. They’d much rather add a new state with KU.
I think it is a stretch that the B10 and SEC will both be at 24 teams. They will expand as it makes financial sense for them, not to chase a nice round number and be the same size.
LikeLike
I’m less wedded to the B1G side of things. If they don’t want to go to 24, so be it. Likewise, if they want to subsidize Kansas in order to have Kansas’ basketball brand, so be it.
The reason the SEC would acquire 8 of the ACC is that’s a majority; and while I haven’t seen the text of the grant of rights, I’m not sure how the ACC would survive if more than half of its members vote to dissolve it. IOW, while Wake or Duke might squawk and scream, the grant of rights isn’t vested in THEM, it’s vested in the ACC. But if there’s no ACC, then what claim do they have? So while you are correct that by taking UVA, for example, the SEC is acquiring some relative dead weight, that’s the price of doing this now rather than waiting 15 years.
LikeLike
The reason the SEC would acquire 8 of the ACC is that’s a majority…
Even if they could acquire eight ACC teams for free, why do it when most of those teams are worth less money than the teams they have now?
I haven’t seen the text of the grant of rights…
Suggestion: perhaps you ought to read it before issuing a legal opinion on how easy it is to break.
LikeLike
Do you have a link for the ACC grant of rights? I’d love to read it.
LikeLike
All accounts of GoR’s I’ve heard say it only takes 1 member sticking around. Dissolving has to be unanimous. Otherwise it’s 13.5 schools leaving the ACC and that 1 school collecting billions in fees. Now, a conference below a certain size would need to add new members to maintain its status with the NCAA and get autobids to the postseason, but that’s a small problem. If WF was the only one left, they could invite all the AAC members to join the ACC and be back at full strength. The ACC brand has more value than the AAC, so they’d come along. WF’s payout would drop to the AAC level, but they’d have billions in fees.
LikeLike
Where are these accounts you reference asserting that each school has sole and independent veto authority regarding conference dissolution? I’m not doubting you, but I haven’t seen anything to that effect.
LikeLike
The problem is that it’s probably impossible to dissolve a conference without unanimous approval due to the Grant of Rights now.
In the past it may have been theoretically possible, but if one school wants to keep everyone’s grant of rights to the conference in effect, then it should hold as a contractual arrangement.
LikeLike
Peter,
The link to the B12’s GoR has been posted here before. Read it to your heart’s content. I’m just repeating what I’ve seen lawyers say.
LikeLike
“if they want to subsidize Kansas in order to have Kansas’ basketball brand, so be it”
You seem to be assuming that each program will remain forever in its current state. But programs go through peaks and valleys.
Though both KU and Iowa State are historically mediocre, KU actually has had a little more success. And of course, it’s one of the few programs that brings real value in basketball.
There’s really no doubt at all that the Big 10 would choose KU over ISU.
LikeLike
To me, what doesn’t make sense about a 32 team super conference is that it necessarily means the destruction of the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 12, and ACC. To me that just doesn’t seem realistic.
The only way you get a proper 32 team league is if the football powers of all of those leagues abandon their conferences and come together to start something new. But would they really do that?
Would USC and UCLA leave Stanford and Cal? Would Michigan and Ohio State leave Northwestern and Indiana? Would North Carolina and Virginia leave Duke and Virginia Tech?
Is that realistic?
And what about the Big Ten Academic Alliance? Does Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin just abandon that? The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor’s budget is over $9 billion. Only about $200 million of that is athletics. That’s about 2%. And what’s the payoff of this move? An extra $50 million in TV money? Does the University of Michigan sign off on destroying the 100+ year old Big Ten and the Big Ten Academic Alliance to chase after what amounts to abotu half a percentage point of their total budget?
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
What’s the point of college sports? It’s to promote academic institutions. Boost enrollment. Promote alumni engagement. But aren’t things like the Big Ten and the SEC part of that? Do you just throw that away to chase a little bit more money?
I’m highly skeptical that university presidents would sign off on that.
LikeLike
Yeah, the SEC and Big Ten have the most reasonable conference layouts, mostly large publics and mostly flagships with a few non-flagship publics and 1 top private school. They each cover a lot of different states and few are tiny states.
There is no reason to blow up those 2 conferences.
The Pac-12 is sorta similar but it has a bit more overlap (especially Arizona/Oregon/Washington), but it’s still in a growing territory and it’s protected by distance with all its powers on the West coast.
The ACC is basically headed the same route as the Big 12 imo though.
Realistically, I can see the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and then 2 lesser in-between conferences Big 12/ACC surviving; maybe those 2 merge into a distinct #4.
That’s about as far as I see it going; I have a hard time believing that the Big Ten and SEC will implode and the powers all leave to make some super conference NFL college version. They can make plenty of money $80+ million a year per school by 2030+ without blowing themselves up.
LikeLike
Andy,
There are 2 different ideas that get mixed up. Some are suggesting a football-only superconference, with the current structure remaining for everything else. Others truly mean a new conference with 32 members. I agree that the latter seems highly unlikely. But a sport-specific conference that pays a lot more for football? That at least sound feasible to me.
LikeLike
But wouldn’t even a football only situation cripple the Big Ten/SEC/Pac 12/ACC?
Isn’t 85% of conference revenue from football?
If the top halves of those leagues left for football, wouldn’t that basically wipe out the revenues of everyone else? Wouldn’t schools like Duke and Purdue and Stanford see their athletics revenue drop by 75%?
Why would those schools then be allowed to have their cake and eat it too? Go off and make a ton of money in their new football league and keep it all to themselves and then come back and play basketball and baseball and wrestling and gymnastics as if nothing happened? And still participate in the academic collaborations?
I would think if Ohio State and Michigan and USC and North Carolina etc walked out on football they’d basically be destroying their conference and would be otherwise locked out by the spurned remaining members.
LikeLike
Yeah, all that is the crux of the problem.
Don’t think anybody from a “lesser school” wants to be earning $15 million a year in TV money and then be compete with super conference football-only schools that are generating $100 million a year and plowing a lot of that into non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
Andy,
“But wouldn’t even a football only situation cripple the Big Ten/SEC/Pac 12/ACC?”
Not necessarily. There are too many unknowns about revenue and how it would be distributed. And if schools had to take cut, they’ll survive. The G5 get by on a tiny fraction of what the P5 get. again, high revenue isn’t a right.
“Isn’t 85% of conference revenue from football?”
Yes, but the P5 would/might still play games against these teams, so that’s good money. The postseason could have big money for them. They also might demand a split of the superleague’s money to allow conference members to play in it and then come home for other sports. These are issues that those who want to form such a league would have to figure out.
“If the top halves of those leagues left for football, wouldn’t that basically wipe out the revenues of everyone else? Wouldn’t schools like Duke and Purdue and Stanford see their athletics revenue drop by 75%?”
There would still be other revenue streams on top of what they make from CFB. And maybe they wouldn’t need to spend as much if they weren’t trying to compete with the Alabama’s of the world.
“Why would those schools then be allowed to have their cake and eat it too? Go off and make a ton of money in their new football league and keep it all to themselves and then come back and play basketball and baseball and wrestling and gymnastics as if nothing happened? And still participate in the academic collaborations?”
Who said they were keeping it all for themselves?
LikeLike
Brian,
“ But a sport-specific conference that pays a lot more for football? That at least sound feasible to me.”
Of course it does to a tOSU guy. 😉
Seriously, this is dramatic enough proposal that I think most non selected schools would insist on a complete divorce. Let them create a complete new governing association and play among themselves. And in a few years the fans of the constant top performers of the new nfl lite will want to jettison the “dead weight “ that isn’t “adding anything. “
College sports shouldn’t be about maximizing espn (or fox, etc) profits.
LikeLike
Feasible as in it could happen, sure. Much more so than superlarge conferences which make zero sense to me.
They would need to figure out the details of the money to make enough people happy, which isn’t trivial, but enough money in the right places can make almost anything happen in college sports.
Why divorce if you make more money by letting them do it?
It shouldn’t be about money at all, but it always is. The goal isn’t to maximize the profits for the media companies, but that’s a side effect of maximizing the revenue for the schools. The genie is out of the bottle on money being in college sports, so now it will inevitably go towards maximizing it until enough schools quit participating to change the model. College sports should be intramural and not broadcast events. They should be for students who happen to enjoy the sports, not a reason to recruit great players who may or may not be able to read. But that’s not the world we live in, and schools can’t afford to go back to it because they’ve taken on debt. They’re stuck in it.
LikeLike
For it to happen you’d need the university presidents at most or all of the top football schools to all agree that it was worth totally blowing up the traditional conference system to chase after a few extra million dollars per year, vs. making $70+ million per year in tv money in a system that more or less looks like what we’re used to. Could they do it? Sure. Will they do it? I don’t think it’s very likely.
LikeLike
“ Why divorce if you make more money by letting them do it?”
It’s called alimony.
“ The goal isn’t to maximize the profits for the media companies, but that’s a side effect of maximizing the revenue for the schools.”
Unless the media company involves itself in organizing the entities it will, and won’t reward. That’s why we have an invitational instead of a playoff to begin with.
There has always been money in college FB. Groucho Marx asking “do we have a school?” Yes. “Do we have a FB team?” Yes. “Tomorrow we start tearing down the school. We can’t afford both” is approaching a century ago. We’ve given ground to it but this is almost the inverse of the Ivys leaving the money battle. Now money interest seems to try to leave all the rest, save a small select group that for the most part has always held a significantl financial advantage.
LikeLike
I’m not suggesting this, recommending it, or saying it’ll happen anytime soon. Just that I think it’s more feasible than 2 giant conferences. It’s all dependent on how much the money would increase with an elite group in their own playoff. If they could all make $100M+ per year while keeping their conference mates above $50M, it would be more likely to happen. If it’s only a small bump in money, nothing will change.
But consider that they’re saying the CFP will double (or more) in value by expanding to 12 teams. Then look how much more the NFL playoff is worth.
There’s no inherent reason big money sports need to be in all-sports conferences, they just are because of history. But as the postseason and its money take over the sport, things change. One or two court decisions could force CFB to become professional if it makes big money. Tell me that wouldn’t shake the structure up. Maybe the revenue sports would officially split from the schools, just keeping the name and colors.
LikeLike
One or two court decisions could force CFB to become professional if it makes big money.
I finally got around to reading the Supreme Court’s Alston decision over the weekend. This was the recent case that ruled many of the NCAA’s player compensation limits violate the Sherman Act.
The Court’s decision took it as given that the players are “paid workers.” It catalogued the many types of “payment” they already legally receive under the NCAA’s previously existing rules.
As the saying goes: “We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.”
LikeLike
There is a pretty big intercollegiate club level. Someone I knew played tennis for the Virginia Tech club. Schools from MS to VA were participating in a tournament in Atlanta. Texas has clubs for many sports that are scholarship. Its far more than just intramural. There are interscholastic competitions in many areas, robotics, chess, college bowl, debate, etc.
The increasing money going to football and basketball may drive some of the scholarship sports back to club level.
LikeLike
Also, as I’ve said before, if this had any likelihood of happening any time soon, then why would Texas and OU be willing to pay upwards of $80 million in exit fees to join the SEC? Obviously they think the SEC is going to be around for a very long time or they wouldn’t bother to do this.
LikeLike
ESPN willl be paying about 80M to get out of LHN. Just a fortuitous happenstance that it enables the expansion of one of their most valuable conferences under contract, and possibly impro the possibility of expanding and extending their CFB invitati…RRR, playoff contract.
LikeLike
For the most part, I could not agree more. Conferences are about many things, including school culture, mutual history, tradition, and goals… Except for the destruction of the existing conferences. Therein I disagree. They will certainly survive, albeit poorer. The survival of the super conference is in question.
Most importantly, for a King like TOSU, the great majority of its audience are faculty, students, staff and alumni from OTHER B1G schools, probably at least 80%. (Brian will have the numbers.) Why would the alumni of Purdue watch TOSU football if it moves to an all Kings football conference and doesn’t ever again play the Boilermakers. In any sport. The B1G will freeze TOSU out of men’s basketball, softball, hockey… TOSU will be left with one sport, not 30+ unless the other Kings bring all their sports.
It is likely an all Kings conference would fail economically, especially since almost all teams will go something like 6 and 6, and their historic audiences will boycott them.
LikeLike
Bob,
This is one reason I think a sport-specific superleague is more feasible. CFB makes enough money to be national, but most sports don’t.
As for the audience, the vast majority are fans but not directly affiliated. OSU has < 700,000 living alumni, students, staff and faculty but has millions of fans in Ohio. OSU has lots of fans in neighboring states and nationally, too, many of whom are also unaffiliated.
Why would PU alumni watch OSU? For the same reason they watch Alabama or Clemson – because they are CFB fans. Why does anyone watch the NFL?
As for records, they should look much like NFL records. Some teams will win 10+ games, some will win 3 or fewer, many will win 4-8 games. That's the price of forming such a league. Maybe they'd also play some OOC games just to boost records and get extra home games.
LikeLike
I wonder if the speculation and panic over what will happen or what certain school should do isn’t missing a larger issue. All of the discussion presupposes that college football will remain as popular as ever, and therefore the revenue will remain strong. However….
Before the OU/Texas move, there was general dissatisfaction with the direction of colleges football by casual fans from all but the most successful schools fan bases. The fact that so few teams have ever qualified for the playoffs, players are now free to transfer without restriction, and players are now essentially semi pro with completely unregulated NIL impacts. It’s hard to say how much all of these factor may have turned off a large segment of the casual fan base, but fare to say it would have been measurable to some extent. If realignment goes much further as a pure money grab, what might be left is not the tradition and pageantry but rather a minor league potentially regional sport relevant for only a (relative) handful of schools. Even if most schools the past 10+ years did not actually have a chance, there was at least the appearance they had a chance.
With the glow gone, so might be a good number of fans. In that world, when does the advertising $$ start to dry up and therefore the TV $$? It won’t go away entirely, but it might not stay so lucrative forever.
There is a path for the Pac 12/Big 10/ACC to essentially freeze out the SEC by agreeing to mutual scheduling agreements and staying away from the fear based temptation to further destabilize their leagues with additional realignment from within. Doing so may mean proceeding with a lot of money, but not the “most possible” money recognizing the health of college football long term is at stake here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Iggy – I think this is more about sports TV rights in general as opposed to college football itself.
The general argument for the continuing rise in sports TV rights fees is that their *relative* value compared to all other types of programming (e.g. scripted shows) is actually higher than ever now. Ratings are down for all TV programs across the board, but sports ratings are down significantly less by comparison to everything else.
Drilling down, the *relative* value of college football compared to all other non-NFL sports is also higher than ever now. It would have been unthinkable up through the 1990s that college football postseason games would outdraw MLB postseason games, but that is what has consistently happened over the past 15 years.
The inherent value of sports in today’s world is that it’s one of the few types of programs where advertising has any value in the first place because people generally still watch sports *live* (AKA actually watch commercials). I know that there are plenty of anecdotes that sports fans like to DVR games or watch them later, but the aggregate data shows that this group is a tiny percentage of the viewing audience (whereas it is now a massive percentage of any given scripted show audience).
LikeLike
If realignment goes much further as a pure money grab, what might be left is not the tradition and pageantry but rather a minor league potentially regional sport relevant for only a (relative) handful of schools.
There is one constant in college football: No matter how it changes, some fans will say that the sport has been ruined, and nobody will watch anymore. Those concerns go back over a century. Money in college sports goes back to the beginning. With each turn of the ratchet, there was somebody to say that this will be the death of the game.
Now, is it possible that some change finally will ruin the sport? I can’t rule that out. But if the sport actually died every time someone predicted that, it would’ve been gone long ago.
There is a path for the Pac 12/Big 10/ACC to essentially freeze out the SEC by agreeing to mutual scheduling agreements and staying away from the fear based temptation to further destabilize their leagues with additional realignment from within.
What the SEC did, all the other leagues want to do. The Pac-12 was perfectly happy to add Texas and Oklahoma a decade ago; they just couldn’t make a deal. The Big Ten would add more ACC schools in a heartbeat, if they were available. Conference re-alignment to make more money is nothing new, and I doubt this is the last of it.
LikeLike
“ With each turn of the ratchet, there was somebody to say that this will be the death of the game.”
It’s not the sudden death that always gets pointed to that concerns me. It’s the evolving into the spaces that were specifically regulated against in order to foster a more equal playing field.
“ What the SEC did, all the other leagues want to do. ”
Agreed, but the SEC didn’t do it alone. I didn’t see a media “partner” stepping up to enable a move a decade ago. In fact one stepped up with a stupid expensive contract that would prevent it supposedly until the ‘30s. Now that same contract provides for buyout with the remaining amount owed.
LikeLike
The counter-argument to what you are saying Frank, however, is that the college sports audience is old and getting older. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sports-with-the-oldest-and-youngest-tv-audiences-2017-06-30 College football and basketball were both 52 in this 2016 report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iggy,
That may cause a shift in fans rather than a loss. Those things turn off the older generation, but the younger generation doesn’t know a different world. Many younger fans were excited to see player paid. And based on how popular the NFL is, many neutral fans might like a superleague approach. And now that college sports gambling is broadly legal, a whole new type of interest is drawing in viewers. A superleague could drive that even further. As could the growth of fantasy football which would work better in a superleague than it does now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a lot of what you said that I agree with, Iggy.
That said, I don’t think the TV money is going to significantly decline in the next 10-20 years. It’s pretty easy to turn on the TV and take in a game on TV these days.
The revenue-related issues that would keep me up at night if I were an AD are every other source of revenue for CFB, mainly ticket sales to the stadiums.
Fans with memories of the 1970s-1990s are getting to the point where they can no longer move up and down the stadium stairs to reach their seats anymore.
Which leaves the fans of 1990s college football onwards who don’t have the money to spend on ridiculously overpriced CFB tickets.
With student loan debt to pay off, expensive cost of living to pay for, and college funds for kids to save up for, the under 40 crowd can’t justify spending well over $500 on the tickets, travel, lodging, concessions, and merchandise at a CFB game.
LikeLike
billinmidwest, your cynical analysis is pretty much spot on. Cord cutting is not being done by B1G alumni, young or old. There is an undercurrent of folks who are TV penny-pinchers and they don’t want to pay for a lot of cable stuff, BTN and Oprah and the Cooking Channel included. Those folks are not the B1G alumni base.
With Fox as our Sugar Daddy, I don’t think we need to fret about losing our BTN cable base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: adding 6 to 9 Pac-12 teams to the Big Ten.
The more (and more) I think about it, I always come back to “add schools that add value and figure out scheduling later”…
Adding say 6 to 9 Pac-12 teams to the Big Ten does make sense financially, and they’d all be AAUs so it would also make sense academically as well as adding all those large/growth states out West.
Scheduling can be worked out, whether you put them in their own division or whether you give everybody 6 or 7 locked games, you can make the scheduling work.
Something like 6 locked games in a 20 to 23 team Big Ten makes some sense, you get most of your schedule region locked and then have to possibly travel cross country for 1 or at most 2 games. That limits everyone’s travel. Apply the same to all other sports. Just lock a lot of games to keep cross-country travel low.
Take having 6 locked games: even if USC has 3 games against current Big Ten teams in a 9 game schedule, you’d figure 1 or 2 of those would be home games, so that’s at most 2 games traveling to the current Big Ten. Rutgers would play 6 of its games against mostly Big Ten East (maybe 1 or 2 West) teams and then 3 games against the rest.
That’s basically very manageable. And the money would obviously be there.
The question is just whether the Big Ten’s leadership feels the need to make such a dramatic move.
I do find it interesting that USC and UCLA basically halted the 25-30 year extension of the Pac-12’s grant of rights in the past couple of years when the conference was trying to gauge outside interest in the Pac-12 Networks. Who knows what happens, but I expect them to look hard at their options. There seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction with the Pac-12 Networks and their TV deal generally from those two.
LikeLike
z33k,
I’d modify that to “add schools that add significant value and figure out scheduling later.” Don’t mess up a good thing for a small increase in value. And importantly, remember that value isn’t only financial (or at least not just athletic $).
If the B10 added 6-9 P12 schools, I agree there are creative things you can do. I wouldn’t lock 6 games, because we already know that those games lack value (although we know being in the B10 would add some fan interest in the midwest). But lock 2-3 out west to preserve rivalries, play half of the remaining western block, and then rotate through the B10 teams.
So with 6: 3 locked + 1 P12 (rotating) + 5 B10 (rotating)
EX. USC: UCLA, Cal, Stanford + UW/UO + 5 B10
So with 9: 2 locked + 3 P12 (rotating) + 5/14 B10 rotating
EX. USC: UCLA, Stanford + UW/UO + Cal/AZ + UU/CU + 3 B10
Likewise the B10 teams would lock some rivals and rotate through the rest.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was just doing more of an info dive into Wilner’s past Pac-12 reports, and the situation out in the Pac-12 is roughly as bad as it was in the Big 12 except that they’re not really in danger of just 2 schools bolting (if something happens it’d be a giant number of them coming to the Big Ten).
The Pac-12 Networks just looks like a complete failure based on his reporting the past couple of years, and I have to think with everything aligned right now for the Big Ten negotiations and Pac-12 as well as the Pac-12’s GoR being up relatively soon, things just look interesting.
Especially with the Texas/OU thing causing everyone to rethink their assumptions.
These were the 2019 figures for the Pac-12 Networks:
Pac-12/National: 14.8 million
Pac-12/Los Angeles: 3.0 million
Pac-12/Bay Area: 2.1 million
Pac-12/Washington: 1.1 million
Pac-12/Mountain: 1.0 million
Pac-12/Arizona: 0.7 million
Pac-12/Oregon: 0.6 million
And they were at something like 13 cents a month per sub.
Team payouts were still under $3 million per school per year.
No wonder USC and UCLA didn’t extend the GoR. They clearly don’t see that as sustainable, with good reason.
There is a part of me that thinks that decision makers in the Big Ten and at USC/UCLA will at least think through these types of 6-9 schools come to the Big Ten kind of thing. Because there’s just no reason to keep their networks going or merge the conferences (Big Ten wouldn’t want all 12 clearly).
LikeLike
I always come back to “add schools that add value and figure out scheduling later”
Which 6–9 Pac-12 schools do you think add value to the Big Ten? I am not sure that they exist, even at the low end of your range. I agree, that if the value is there, and it is significant, the Big Ten would surely make the deal and “figure out scheduling later.” That is what conferences almost always do.
The Pac-12 botched their network rollout, but I doubt their conference would ever have the kind of value (per team) that the Big Ten does. They just don’t have as many schools with the passionate fanbases and the national appeal.
I do find it interesting that USC and UCLA basically halted the 25-30 year extension of the Pac-12’s grant of rights in the past couple of years when the conference was trying to gauge outside interest in the Pac-12 Networks.
I think that idea was a Larry Scott “Hail Mary”. No other conference needed a quarter-century grant of rights to make a network viable. TV partners don’t plan that far in advance. If you need a 25-year lock-in to make the numbers work, then it’s a bad investment.
LikeLike
I think USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington for sure would be above the average value of a Big Ten team or SEC team in terms of TV value.
The question is how many teams do you have to add to get those 4?
I mean even with a disastrous Pac-12 Network agreement paying less than $3 million per year, those schools are still getting $35 million in conference payouts.
Imagine if they were added to the Big Ten, and the Big Ten bumped those states to its in-state subscriber payments for BTN.
And then think about the fact that you can basically drop 4 schools from the current Pac-12 and that wouldn’t change the TV payments they’d be receiving for a supposed Pac-8 (drop the 3 State schools and Utah).
Basically, I think a Pac-8 (minus the State schools and Utah) is probably worth at least $60 million a year per school to the Big Ten.
Just those top 4 are probably worth like $80 million a year to the Big Ten but they’d probably come with 2 to 4 more (Cal/Stanford and Arizona/Colorado).
Also, Fox wouldn’t mind because they’d basically just be paying all that Pac-12 money to the Big Ten instead so splitting it less ways works better for them. Basically doing the same thing that ESPN is doing by moving Texas/LHN and OU to the SEC from the Big 12.
This would simplify the situation for FOX, they could just dump the Big 12 and Pac-12 (except for maybe just small deals for FS1/FS2 content) and focus on the Big Ten paying 20-22 Big Ten teams.
LikeLike
“ I think that idea was a Larry Scott “Hail Mary”.
I don’t believe they were asking for the grant, but we’re exploring the possibility if an Amazon, Google, Apple were to request something along those lines to avoid developing a new sports delivery method only to lose those rights as it’s viability was established.
“No other conference needed a quarter-century grant of rights to make a network viable. “
Without a grant there is no network. See: B12 how long did ACC grant?
Viability isn’t the issue. It’s how much might be bid if a significant time is committed.
“TV partners don’t plan that far in advance.”
Oh, I bet they have long term projections. The outline of this OU/UT move has surely been considered since Nebraska announced its exit.
“If you need a 25-year lock-in to make the numbers work, then it’s a bad investment.”
Or how long you’d like the numbers to work for you?
LikeLike
Without a grant there is no network. See: B12 how long did ACC grant? Viability isn’t the issue. It’s how much might be bid if a significant time is committed.
Yes, every conference with a network—except the SEC—has a GoR, so that the TV partner making the up-front investment knows it is guaranteed a minimum time with the inventory intact. But nobody needed 25–30 years to make the numbers work. The ACC is the max, and they went out to the mid-2030s.
As part of my day job, I am involved with planning long-term investments. Nobody goes out more than 10 years. If there isn’t an attractive rate of return after a decade, then it is just not attractive at all. To put it differently, there is almost always a better use of capital than an investment that doesn’t pay off in 10 years.
It’s not that they don’t have planners who are blue-skying the next quarter century and beyond. But the error bars 25 years from now are extremely wide. Nobody makes programming plans that depend on being right that far out.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree. And I’m not advocating for necessarily signing one…unless Amazon, or whoever made an offer you simply couldn’t refuse (with escalators tied to what other conferences increases were, etc), and maybe not then. I just don’t think USC, UCLA, etc we’re actually presented anything for them to refuse.
Nobody buys property as an investment anymore?
I guess this is the problem. I’d prefer to think of conference alignment as property ownership and many seem to think of it almost as day trading.
LikeLike
Didn’t the Big 10 do 25 years when they started the BTN?
LikeLike
Didn’t the Big 10 do 25 years when they started the BTN?
I searched high and low, but could find no reference to that.
LikeLike
Nobody buys property as an investment anymore? . . . I’d prefer to think of conference alignment as property ownership and many seem to think of it almost as day trading.
Conferences generally look at realignment as a generational decision. They can do that, because the teams are highly likely to have similar relative value 25 years from now.
Not so with TV rights: how many sports TV properties are still with the same network partner they had 25 years ago? Not very many.
If the sports fan of 1996 could time-travel to 2021, the sport of football would look pretty much the same. But the TV landscape would be totally different.
So, if I am running the SEC, I am highly confident that I can add Texas and Oklahoma, and be sure that will be a good decision a quarter-century from now. I would not have the same confidence in any sort of TV deal.
LikeLike
Don’t know how the GOR worked, but the BTN deal was for 2007 to 2031-32.
LikeLike
IIRC – The Big Ten GOR was for 20 years, and then extended for another six in 2017 to be through 2032.
LikeLike
Impact of NIL. OSU recruit QB Quinn Ewers was the number one ranked player in the class of 2022.
He just reclassified and will be enrolled at OSU for the upcoming season. The reason being the chance to cash in big time under the new NIL rules.
As an aside, OSU also recently got a commitment from the number one prospect in the class of 2021. Defensive end J.T. Tuimoloau
https://247sports.com/Article/Ohio-State-football-Quinn-Ewers-to-enroll-early-Ryan-Day-CJ-Stroud-168502286/
LikeLike
Was this guy propped up by the P-12 to scare the membership into a No vote, or another B-12 school seeking P-12 admission? I find this hard to believe as the average or authoritative T. Tech alum or partisan – though they may be viscerally anti-all things Cali, I dont think they would throw back a life preserver.
https://247sports.com/college/texas-tech/Article/Texas-Tech-to-the-PAC-12-Techs-Soul-for-Mammon–168554491/
LikeLike
That article is hilarious and not that surprising given the overall craziness in that part of the country these days.
LikeLike
“the very large DFW market whose largest constituency is Texas Tech alumni. ”
I’m gonna need to see the data on this one…
LikeLike
Maybe counting the suburbs. You know, Abilene, Odessa, and Lubbock…..
LikeLike
The Harvard Law School Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law has a great article on the Grant of Rights. I didn’t have time to read it all, but perhaps you will:
Click to access hls_8-1.pdf
LikeLike
The most interesting parts to me are the actual legal language used for the Grant of Rights.
The reality though is that even if they are unenforceable (say became UT can’t be sued over it due to sovereign immunity or some other legal reason), no conference wants to test that.
That’s why Texas/OU and the SEC are all saying publicly that they’re leaving in 2025. Nobody wants to really deal with the fallout from actually litigating it when they can just leave free and clear in 4 years.
And there are still lawyers negotiating behind the scenes on a buyout regardless, but yeah just don’t see it ever getting challenged. No real reason for conferences to want to blow up GoRs because that will just make TV networks antsy about signing deals with them.
LikeLike
While it’s fair to say that the many changes over the years have all been met with fear that the sport will be ruined, there is a tipping point where the sport can become less popular. The massive changes occurring simultaneously now are speaking to the fabric of the allure of college football. It’s hard to predict how much of an affect it will have, but it would be nice if we could measure it before we go with the nuclear option of 2 or 3 super conferences.
I’m terms of the age of fans, so we have any data to suggest the game is as broadly popular with the younger generations as it has been with older generations? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I would expect it’s something media companies who have or will bid on future rights will pay close attention to.
LikeLike
The massive changes occurring simultaneously now are speaking to the fabric of the allure of college football.
Which massive changes? So Texas and Oklahoma are joining the SEC in four years? Is that any more massive than when Texas blew up two old conferences — the B8 and the SWC — to form the B12 a quarter century ago? If we had a dollar for every time schools have switched conferences, we could start our own TV network. (OK, not quite…)
The only other big change this year is that players can now sell their NIL rights, something that most people not named “NCAA” thought they should be able to do a long time ago. With everyone else making buckets of millions from college sports, they should be able to cash in too.
LikeLike
@ Marc
“ The only other big change this year is that players can now sell their NIL rights, something that most people not named “NCAA” thought they should be able to do a long time ago. With everyone else making buckets of millions from college sports, they should be able to cash in too.”
This is primarily what I’m speaking of, you make it seem trivial that college football players can now earn unlimited and unregulated revenue. Realignment is not new, so 2 schools shifting conferences alone is not a huge deal. But NIL is a big deal, though obviously it’s too early to know what the long term affects will be.
LikeLike
Note Frank’s tweet. Bowlsby said in TX legislative hearings that UT/OU half of the TV contract and will reduce its value from roughly $28/school million to $14 million.
Sounds high for just the ESPN/Fox TV contract which averages $20 million from 2012 to 2024/5 unless there is a really steep escalation. Not sure what all is included in his number.
LikeLike
Is that the value now or at the end of the deal? Is he including bowl money?
There could be other losses (losing huge Sugar Bowl payment, losing NCAA tourney shares over time, …) he isn’t counting, too.
LikeLike
Texas testified that B1G, PAC, and ACC were considered internally, but only the SEC was contacted. So per this narrative no opportunity for B1G to turndown OU.
Also a lot of reps from Waco, Lubbock, and Ft. Worth complaining about economic impact. They need to show how the Houston economy was “devastated” by the double demotion of Rice and U. of Houston. Doubt any real action will come from the hearings.
LikeLike
Yeah it makes sense that Texas did all their due diligence on their own, basically expect that from king-level programs looking to move.
I fully expect USC/UCLA to do the same groundwork before the Pac-12 deal is re-upped in exploring a move to the Big Ten and leaving behind the Pac-12 Networks mess behind.
Doesn’t mean they’ll make the leap, but everything does line up for a move right now.
And I still maintain that if Texas/OU ever wanted to come to the Big Ten, the Big Ten would have accepted both.
LikeLike
https://www.offtackleempire.com/2021/7/29/22599901/college-football-not-immune-from-volatility-of-late-stage-capitalism-conference-realignment-texas
Some people here might appreciate this piece from SBN’s B10 blog, and the comments.
LikeLike
Of course, none of that has actually happened yet, and odds are it won’t. But it is theoretically possible, I’ll grant you that.
LikeLike
The writer asks, “Are Tradition, History, Stability and Sustainability Worth Abandoning For A Bit More Money Right Now?”
The Big 12 has existed for only 25 years, a mere blip in college football time. UT has no lengthy history with the former Big Eight schools, other than Oklahoma, which it is bringing along for the ride. It is losing its long-term rivalries with Baylor and Texas Tech, but regaining long-term rivalries with Texas A&M and Arkansas. It’s also losing TCU, but it already kicked them to the curb once before.
Oklahoma is leaving more rivalries behind. But of the eight teams that dissolved the Big Eight to form the Big 12, the Sooners are the fourth to leave. It is hardly fair to blame them when three others have preceded them out the door.
And if we go back farther…when Oklahoma joined the conference, it had Grinnell, Washington (MO), and Drake. In 1928, the conference split up. Those three plus Oklahoma State were kicked out (or left on their own). OSU did not rejoin until 30 years later. Colorado also came later.
So when people refer to tradition, they are being very selective.
LikeLike
Back of the envelope math follows:
Say that the SEC acquires
Clemson
FSU
Miami
North Carolina
NC State
Va Tech
Virginia
Ga Tech
Assume further that this would not devalue the forthcoming SEC deal on a per capita basis — and with two 12-team divisions consisting of (1) Alabama, Auburn, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, LSU, Va Tech, Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and (2) Georgia, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Miss State, Ga Tech, North Carolina, NC State — I don’t immediately see why it would. Thus, going forward, those 8 former ACC teams would each be receiving $70 million/year from the SEC for media rights.
Then, in order to placate the six schools left behind (Syracuse, BC, Wake, Duke, Pitt, Louisville) per the ACC grant of rights, the aforementioned “Clemson 8” schools contribute $15 million/year for 15 years to a GOR “pool.” That amounts to $1.8 billion. Divided 6 ways, that’s $300 million, or $20 million/year for 15 years for the six recipients.
So, to bring this all back home, if $55 million/year exceeds the expected value of the current ACC media rights deal, and it does by a fair amount, then it would be in the financial interest of the “Clemson 8” to take the deal. Likewise, it’s hard for me to imagine that the “Duke 6” wouldn’t accept this settlement in order to avoid litigation and the prospect that the grant of rights could fall entirely if litigated to a conclusion. Moreover, $20 million a year net for 15 years is, by itself, not insubstantial and would be on top of whatever else they might be able to realize as a minor college football brand. So everybody moves on reasonably happy.
LikeLike
Peter,
It’s a huge assumption that those teams could match the value of the SEC. Clemson might now, but won’t if they go back to their norm. FSU and Miami would’ve back in their prime, but not now. Especially since UF already has the SEC in all the FL media markets. VT’s brand is way down since Beamer. GT has no brand any more and adds no market. UNC, NCSU and UVA never were CFB brands. You are adding lots of smaller state schools and a private, so they have smaller alumni bases and fan bases. Add in the smaller brands you included, I don’t see how they can match the SEC.
Why on Earth would the 6 agree to this? The TV rights of those 8 schools belong to the ACC for 15 years. Your plan would have them agreeing to a reduced payout for 15 years just to avoid litigation. At a minimum they would demand the 8/ESPN keep them whole through the end of the deal. So whatever is left over is what the 8 get as a bump.
LikeLike
That would probably mean that the remaining 6 would be giving up their football programs for $20 million a year for 15 years.
Are there other schools that they could pick up which would result in a P5 league? Which ones? A merger with the AAC? West Virginia leaving the B12 might make sense. UConn has a $30 million dollar break up fee to pay to the Big East for 6 years, and then a sliding scale, but their football is now worse than a disaster.
If the ACC split, it is not at all clear that any of the 6 would have a home anywhere else, unless, like the B12 they rebuilt with leftovers..
B1G? Duke has value due to basketball, but Coach K is about to retire. Will the magic remain? Great school, but is that nearly enough?
Wake good relatively small private school, but then what?
Cuse no AAU and private school with no major market power. Cuse is 250 miles from NYC, the same as PSU, so that is not meaningful. Cuse has about 250,000 alums which sounds good but is far less than most B1G schools.
BC has not delivered Boston market to the ACC, what would it do for the B1G?
Pitt adds zero to Penn State. Louisville, really?
On the other hand, as Brian already said, what do the 8 add to the SEC, other than cementing the southeast, but probably at a loss of income/school. Clemson sure. FSU maybe, if they can come back to glory. They are geographically close to most SEC teams so FSU has that going for it, and are a certain cultural fit.
Miami? 450 miles from FSU and a long way from other SEC schools, if that matters. In addition, is Miami really a northeast school located in southern FL? I think most of the student body comes from the northeast or Latin America, but I have not researched that. I do not think that Miami with its $71,000 per year estimated annual cost is a likely school for most SEC type fans. It is also not very big with a student body of 16,000.
What do FSU and Miami add to U Florida? FSU does have a huge group of fans in FL and South Geogia (the FSU campus is less than 25 miles from the FL-GA border). Miami?
VA and NC both the flagship schools in new states for the SEC. Very attractive. I may be wrong, but would not be surprised if the academic people at those two would prefer the B1G, where they would be gladly welcomed, if the ACC crashed and burned.
What do VaTech, NC State or GaTech add to the picture? Dead weight?
LikeLike
Duke has value due to basketball, but Coach K is about to retire. Will the magic remain?
Kings tend to remain Kings. UNC remained elite after Dean Smith’s retirement. Duke will be elite without Coach K.
LikeLike
I’m starting from the premise that ESPN wants to maximize viewership. Part of doing that is reducing the number of schools playing in the highest division. To cite an obvious example, Clemson plays maybe two or three meaningful regular season games a year. That’s no good for ESPN and boring for fans. So downsizing has to occur, but it seems unlikely that conferences are going to kick members out on their own. (Granted, I could be wrong about that, but that seems to me to be the least likely way for downsizing to occur.) So it will have to occur through partial conference mergers. Texas/Oklahoma is the first salvo, and if I had to bet a few bucks, I’d say between 0-2 Big XII teams will still be playing major conference football in five years; the rest will be roadkill.
As far as the SEC goes, I agree that if it were entirely up to them, they’d probably just stop where they are. But I doubt ESPN likes that for the reason I mentioned above; the ACC as a whole is a deadweight conference at present. And the only way to begin fixing that is to trim the bottom. However, I don’t think the ACC could realistically trim more than six because of the GOR, leaving eight teams to be acquired, and the SEC is the natural conference to do this. While I agree that eight is more than the SEC would like to take on their own, it’s the minimum (I suspect) that they could take in order to shut down the ACC and work around the GOR. Plus, the eight schools I’ve identified, on balance, probably help the SEC’s academic standing, particularly UVA, Ga. Tech, and UNC. (The others — Va Tech, Clemson, Miami, FSU, and NC State — are easily all mid-tier within the SEC.)
In sum, then, by approaching acquisition in this manner, ESPN gets better matchups for ACC schools while not diminishing the SEC’s football profile. At the same time, the SEC improves its academic profile and strengthens its grip on college football.
LikeLike
Maximizing average viewership you mean? Because they will be seriously lacking for inventory if they cut all the “dead weight.” And some of the regional fans will tune out if none of the local schools are in it. The NFL keeps 32 teams for a reason. They could cut the Lions and Jags (just 2 examples) and get higher average ratings.
ESPN’s goals are to maximize profit and revenue, and not always in the short term. If they make more money with low viewership, they’ll do it. See all the crappy bowls they own.
Every major vote in a P5 conference takes at least a super majority (75% in most/all of them). That’s 11 out of 14 in the ACC. I think dissolving would take unanimity. Otherwise it would be too easy to use the loophole to evict schools.
And in 5 years the B12 will still exist. Presumably that will still count.
LikeLike
If you believe that 66 teams (P5, ND, BYU) will continue to play at the highest level of college football within 5-10 years (let alone all 130 FBS), then we just disagree about that. I firmly believe we are headed to contraction at the highest level. How that will happen is the question.
In contrast, if you are of the belief that the overall picture will be status quo ante for the foreseeable future, well then I can see why you think nothing substantial will happen re mergers, etc.
Finally, sure, you are right that ESPN likes having lots of inventory, but they aren’t going to pay everybody what will be necessary for schools to compete at the highest level.
LikeLike
Peter,
Then we disagree. It might be 68-70 (if the B12 expands this time), but it won’t be < 60. That level of change take time and a large step-change in money. The P5 will get a big bump from expanding the CFP, so that will delay them looking to do anything more drastic for a while.
I don't see mergers making sense. It only works financially if both sides bring about the same thing to the table in terms of value and the combined entity is somehow more valuable than the sum of its parts. The SEC and B10 have no need to merge, but they might be the only conferences that fit the description.
ESPN has been happy to keep paying everyone. Having "dead weight" reduced the cost to them of having the big brands. They like that. More inventory for less money.
LikeLike
Peter,
Basically you are saying the presidents of numerous major schools will sell out academic integrity to presumably make a few more dollars in sports. As someone said in this thread, the sport budget of U Michigan is about 2% of the entire university budget.
After many decades of playing against and academically collaborating with Purdue and Northwestern, for example, would UM skip out the B1G and leave them out in the cold?
A school like OSU gains tens (or hundreds) of thousands eyeballs from B1G fans, who otherwise would not care about OSU or watch OSU games.
Will a school like Stanford become part of the mini-NFL? What does the relationship between USC, UCLA, Stanford (and maybe Cal) mean?
Why would any school not in the select 32 play any of that group in any other sports?
Perhaps you do not consider the political implications of what this 32 or even 40 team league would be. Congress has no problem getting involved in college sports issues, and this would be the granddaddy of issues.
I can tell you without hesitation that delegations from some states would be up in arms. If Rutgers had stayed at the level of the AAC forever, so be it. Now that they are in the B1G, any attempt to dump them due to “downsizing” by the B1G, would result in the entire NJ Congressional delegation putting everything into stopping that.
The same thing would happen in other states. Who in Congress would stand up for the plan – to protect ESPN revenues? Good luck with that. How many members of Congress would go to the wall for ESPN?
This of course ignores state politicians who vote on school budgets and might not be thrilled.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Why would any school not in the select 32 play any of that group in any other sports?”
The same reason as for everything we’ve been discussing – money.
“Perhaps you do not consider the political implications of what this 32 or even 40 team league would be. Congress has no problem getting involved in college sports issues, and this would be the granddaddy of issues.
I can tell you without hesitation that delegations from some states would be up in arms. If Rutgers had stayed at the level of the AAC forever, so be it. Now that they are in the B1G, any attempt to dump them due to “downsizing” by the B1G, would result in the entire NJ Congressional delegation putting everything into stopping that.”
And exactly what power does the NJ delegation have over the B10? Congress already refused to give the NCAA an anti-trust exemption like pro sports have, and they can’t manage to pass an NIL law either. They will do what they always do lately – talk a lot and pass nothing into law.
“Who in Congress would stand up for the plan”
Those from states who net benefit from it? Those who think Congress has more important issues than college sports to deal with?
“to protect ESPN revenues?”
If ESPN is making money, so are the schools ESPN is paying.
“This of course ignores state politicians who vote on school budgets and might not be thrilled.”
Or might see this as a source of funding for schools that doesn’t require tax money.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/2749212/2021/08/03/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-to-meet-with-pac-12s-george-kliavkoff-on-tuesday-sources/
The commissioners of the B12 and P12 are meeting to discuss options.
Their meeting is expected to be a key first step in talks about whether the two conferences would benefit from strategically working together during college sports’ new phase of realignment.
…
Discussions on a pact between the two could go in several different directions. One option would be a scheduling alliance between Big 12 and Pac-12 members. Bowlsby acknowledged this possibility on Monday during his appearance at a Texas Senate committee meeting on the future of college sports in Texas. Pursuing a merger with another conference is another possibility.
“I think there are options for us to partner with other conferences,” Bowlsby said Monday. “There may be opportunity for mergers. There may be opportunities to add members. There may be other opportunities that are currently unforeseen.”
One other possible solution Bowlsby floated while appearing for the committee in Austin on Monday would be the Big 12 working with another conference to aggregate their negotiating rights for the next TV deal.
I don’t see the upside here.
How does a scheduling alliance get them more money? They both already play 9 conference games and usually (always?) at least 1 P5 OOC game. How would playing more B12 teams help the P12’s value? Nobody wants OrSU vs KSU. At least the B12 would get games against USC, UO and UW. What games would they give up for this alliance? Other P5 OOC games? G5 OOC games? Conference games?
How does a merger help? You add more travel and games against unfamiliar foes with equally weak brands.
The third option is aggregating their rights. They wouldn’t gain significant negotiating leverage with the media companies in my opinion. And what if the companies offer one conference better terms than the other? Why would they say no just to protect the other conference?
LikeLike
Would not surprise me that the Pac-12 called the Big 12 after finding less interest from the Big Ten this time around now that the Big Ten is at 9 conference games and like you said doesn’t really have an interest in locking its OOC games.
Last time the Big Ten and Pac-12 announced an alliance, we only had 12 teams, and 8 game conference schedules.
I find this interesting if only because it probably lets me think that USC/UCLA are going to contact the Big Ten and have some backside discussions.
At least fits a narrative of Big Ten aiming more for adding schools not just a scheduling alliance.
LikeLike
It would surprise me. I don’t recall the writer covering P12 media days who said in 10 hours he had zero people express an interest in the B12-2-2+2-2.
What wouldn’t surprise me would be discussion regarding support (or not) for the playoff proposal, and/or possible alternative, and the timeline. Also a major “remake” of the ncaa is going to begin discussion in about three months.
I’m sure some of the other items you mention will be broached, but those would be heavily influenced by what occurs regarding these big items.
LikeLike
They are meeting to discuss options, since both have major problems. Maybe the PAC views this as a way to somehow stop USC/UCLA and a couple of other from jumping ship, though I do not understand the logic. I guess that they have nothing to lose by talking.
I do not see the upside to the PAC, unless it decides to welcome a few B12 schools, but I hardly believe that Bowlsby is going to a meeting to finalize the death of his league.
Of course, there have been lots of comments here about the B1G working with the PAC, and I do not understand those either,
LikeLike
I also cannot see how the Pac-12 would benefit from an alliance. They have a new commissioner who is still learning his way around college athletics, so he might as well take the meeting. Talk is free.
It seems to me that if the Pac-12 wants to be allied with any Big 12 schools, it should just raid the Big 12, which it could do quite easily. I doubt there is any Big 12 school who’d turn down a Pac-12 invite.
Bowlsby is in the more vulnerable position, as his league just lost half its value—a problem the Pac-12 does not have.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31950751/sources-commissioners-big-12-pac-12-meet-discuss-potential-strategic-partnership
Some more about the meeting.
The meeting, which was first reported by The Athletic, does not signify an expectation for an official partnership to materialize, only that both commissioners are vetting options for how to move forward in the wake of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s decisions to leave the Big 12 for the SEC.
In an appearance before the Texas Senate on Tuesday, Bowlsby raised the possibility of the Big 12 partnering or merging with another conference and, at Pac-12 media day last week, Kliavkoff told ESPN he wouldn’t rule on a scheduling alliance with another conference or expansion.
…
Kliavkoff’s stance is that Texas’ and Oklahoma’s departures strengthen the Pac-12’s national footing as the only Power 5 conference with teams in the Pacific and Mountain time zones.
“I think, over time, the dominoes will start falling as a result of the move by Texas and Oklahoma,” Kliavkoff said. “And we’re not determined that we need to expand in order to thrive; we can thrive at 12. We don’t understand the paradigm that if someone else has 16, you need to have 16. It just doesn’t make sense.”
LikeLike
I seriously think espn needs to sit out any reporting regarding anything to do with conference makeup. Fair or not, it has a fox guarding the henhouse and reporting on the internal machinations vibe.
LikeLike
Who better to have the inside scoop on realignment than the people driving it? It should make getting interviews easier: “Hey boss, can I have a few minutes to talk to you?”
LikeLike
Can I administer some sodium Pentothal first?
LikeLike
In a recent ESPN College Football podcast they discussed the acquisition of OU/TX (I could only stomach listening to 10-15 minutes) and the frame and talking point they kept repeating over and over was “unintended consequences.” It was like I was listening to a certain network’s news program.
LikeLike
Should ESPN be sidelined for the purposes of journalistic impartiality? Absolutely
Will ESPN be sidelined for the purposes of journalistic impartiality? LOL nope!
LikeLike
This has long been an obvious move. Even before UT/OU to SEC.
LikeLike
This P12/B12 meeting seems like due diligence. I’d expect this to occur between all the conference commissioners, they wouldn’t be very good at their jobs if they did not have these conversations.
LikeLike
I’m a veterinarian and I’m entitled to beat a dead horse. I think we should take another look at adding the two Canadian universities which are both AAU members, Toronto and McGill. The Canadians are clearly softening on their current position of awarding “tuition only” scholarships to athletes and are more receptive to the American “full ride” version. Here’s a quote from the link below:
“Hahto said that athletic scholarships have been an emerging topic in the last few years. She explained that the U Sports rules are debated quite regularly. “I don’t think you’ll see a change next week, but it’s not outside the realm of possibilities,” she explained.”
https://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/a-glance-at-the-canadian-american-scholarship-systems
Both Toronto and McGill are large public universities, McGill has 40,000 students and Toronto has 62,000+ on the main campus. However UT has another 30,000+ on two regional campuses, each just twelve miles away within the Toronto metro area so the total local student enrollment is actually over 93,000 (link):
https://www.utoronto.ca/about-u-of-t/quick-facts
The province of Ontario would add 14.5 million people to the footprint of the Big Ten Network and Quebec (McGill is in Montreal) would add another 8.4 million. Together, that would be about 23 million which is over 61% of Canada’s population.
Academics at both schools are superb. The following ranking of colleges in North America places Toronto between two Ivy League schools at # 14 and McGill at # 46, between Georgia Tech and Pitt.
https://www.4icu.org/top-universities-north-america/
To get these two schools to come on board would take some salesmanship by the Big Ten. It will entail a cultural change but appears there is growing resentment to the top Canadian athletes going off to the NCAA, so that may no longer be a showstopper. Note that one Canadian college, Simon Frasier U, joined the NCAA in 2009 and now competes with American colleges in Div II. If the Big Ten sat down with the presidents of U of T and McGill and explained that TV revenue, including the BTN, would more than cover the cost of athletic scholarships, that might be convincing.
Another issue, Title IX is an American law, not an NCAA rule. Canadian colleges wouldn’t need to comply with it unless they wished to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Colin,
It’s been brought up before. I have several concerns about it:
1. Canadians don’t care about B10 football or B10 anything else. They wouldn’t pay for BTN.
2. Canadian college sports suck. That’s why Simon Frasier is D-II. Would you suggest that any US D-II school try to join the B10 athletically? It’s a much bigger leap than RU is trying to make.
3. International laws can be a real pain in the butt to deal with. Look at the border issues with COVID. It was a huge deal for the NHL to work something out, and the NHL is vital to Canadians.
4. They don’t play US football, and neither do most Canadian high schools.
5. And for those wondering, their hockey teams aren’t great. Most of the best players in Canada play in the major junior leagues or NCAA hockey.
6. Americans don’t care about Canadian colleges or their teams. You think ESPN wants to show OSU vs Toronto? At least people know who RU is.
7. They wouldn’t admit schools into the B10 that didn’t take women’s sports somewhat seriously. Title IX doesn’t apply to them, but the B10 would make them basically follow it (level playing field).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian, in response to each of your concerns:
1) Canadians won’t pay for BTN. That is a groundless assumption on your behalf. If the Canadians had their own teams playing in the B1G, they’d be signing up by the million.
2) “Canadian college sports suck” because all of their top athletes go south to play in the NCAA.
3) “international laws” are a totally lame excuse. Ever see the Blue Jays get stopped at the border?
4) “They don’t play US football”. Are you serious? Countless Canadian football players have gone south to play NCAA football. It would be a trivial transition to switch from US to Canadian rules.
5) “ . . . their hockey teams aren’t great. . . “ because all of the good ones go semi-pro league or to US colleges. Over half of the Ivy League hockey players are from Canada.
6) “Americans don’t care about Canadian colleges or their teams.” That comment is too childish to be dignified with a response. Toronto would probably dominate B1G hockey in three years.
7) ”They wouldn’t admit schools into the B10 that didn’t take women’s sports somewhat seriously.” I didn’t say they wouldn’t. They would probably comply with Title IX voluntarily but if they didn’t, the B1G would tell them: You must comply with Title IX. Problem solved.
LikeLike
“1) Canadians won’t pay for BTN. That is a groundless assumption on your behalf. If the Canadians had their own teams playing in the B1G, they’d be signing up by the million.”
Now who’s making assumptions? If 7/8 of the live contests and all of the historical content don’t include a Canadian school, why would they pay? They have zero allegiance to the B10 schools and don’t care about their teams (or their sports).
“2) “Canadian college sports suck” because all of their top athletes go south to play in the NCAA.”
And that will suddenly stop? It hasn’t for Simon Frasier. These schools would be building every team from the ground up. That’s a huge and very expensive undertaking. Do they want to invest hundreds of millions in facilities and coaches and recruiting?
“3) “international laws” are a totally lame excuse. Ever see the Blue Jays get stopped at the border?”
I saw the Blue Jays have to play home games in Buffalo. Colleges can’t and won’t do that.
“4) “They don’t play US football”. Are you serious?”
Yes. They play Canadian football – 12 men, longer field, 3 downs, etc. You may have heard of it.
“Countless Canadian football players have gone south to play NCAA football.”
https://saturdayblitz.com/2019/07/13/college-football-analyzing-list-2019-international-players/
Entering the 2019 college football season, a total of 143 international players fill roster spots for 64 Division I FBS schools (including 33 Power Five programs).
…
Most international college football players by country:
1. Australia – 42
2. Canada – 40
3. American Samoa -18
That’s just over 1 per team, and 16-20 per year for all of I-A. That seems very countable. There are more Aussie punters than Canadians.
“It would be a trivial transition to switch from US to Canadian rules.”
Depends on the position. Generally US players are better trained since they grew up with the rules, so they win out.
“5) “ . . . their hockey teams aren’t great. . . “ because all of the good ones go semi-pro league or to US colleges. Over half of the Ivy League hockey players are from Canada.”
And they’ll keep going pro. College is for the ones who can’t make it in major juniors right away.
“6) “Americans don’t care about Canadian colleges or their teams.” That comment is too childish to be dignified with a response. Toronto would probably dominate B1G hockey in three years.”
No they wouldn’t, and good luck getting neutral fans to watch a Canadian team outside of professional sports (and they struggle) or a major international competition against the US. I’m sure Toronto vs Iowa will be a big hit in the south. There’s a reason ESPN doesn’t show Blue Jays games except if they’re at the Yankees/Red Sox/other big US brand. The recent Stanley Cup finals were the second-lowest rated ever on NBC. The worst? 2007 when the Ottawa Senators were playing. See a theme? 3 of the 5 lowest SC’s on NBC involved a Canadian team. If the NHL can’t get Americans to watch Canadians (or Canadiens), CFB sure won’t.
“7) ”They wouldn’t admit schools into the B10 that didn’t take women’s sports somewhat seriously.” I didn’t say they wouldn’t. They would probably comply with Title IX voluntarily but if they didn’t, the B1G would tell them: You must comply with Title IX. Problem solved.”
No, you said they wouldn’t need to comply with it unless they wanted to:
“Another issue, Title IX is an American law, not an NCAA rule. Canadian colleges wouldn’t need to comply with it unless they wished to do so.”
LikeLike
The Big Ten cares about academics, but it is a sports league. Canadian schools don’t play American football, which generates 85% of the revenue.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to be negative, but the reality is that Canadian schools just wouldn’t attract US eyeballs.
That’s the problem. US viewers are US-brand centric.
LikeLike
I was initially quite intrigued with Toronto as a possible Big Ten candidate back in 2010 for all the advantages listed, but I don’t believe that such a move is remotely possible. Toronto is one of the premier universities in the world, and their (extremely successful) model ignores the “athletic branding” so prominent in the US. I cannot imagine that the University of Toronto brass would welcome creating a $100M+ enterprise (with all of its governance issues) so orthogonal to their current operating procedure, even if they would be a financial boon to the Big Ten (and I’m a skeptic on this point).
Perhaps the Big Ten could develop a partnership with UT in a few non-revenue sports (i.e., an Associate Member); having UT in the BTAA and a (small) claim to be the only “international conference” would be attractive to the Big Ten (I’m not certain how UT would view such an arrangement).
LikeLike
If they stepped up their athletic program first, then it might make more sense because it would show they do want to compete. But otherwise it’s like adding RU from the 70s and hoping they’ll decide to try. If the BTAA wants to add them, fine. Or add them for hockey only as a proof of concept. If they can’t compete in hockey, they won’t in anything else either.
LikeLike
Recap of meeting in Texas regarding UT leaving the B12 for the SEC.
To me the fun takeaway was Bowlsby throwing more cold water on the playoff expansion to 12 teams. In doing so openly he joins OSU AD Gene Smith. Do I personally think they will kill playoff expansion? No. I think that this is pressure on the SEC to happily go with a cap on maximum number of teams. Again I think that three is a nice number. Three might keep OU or UT out of the playoffs for a long time, and wouldn’t that be fun.
Or maybe go to 8 teams, with a two team limit.
Bowlsby claims that a lot of people are not excited about moving forward. We shall see.
The article said:
College Football Playoff expansion looked like a lock in early July with the expectation the system would jump from four to 12 teams. That seems far from a certainty now.
Bowlsby, along with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, was part of a four-person working group who helped craft the 12-eam proposal. And he seems to be hitting pause on that idea. Directing a question toward Bowlsby during his testimony Monday, Senator Lois Kolkhorst mentioned that 12 teams will soon have the potential to reach the playoff, to which Bowlsby interjected: “Maybe.”
When asked for clarification, Bowlsby said the landscape of college football has shifted in recent weeks, pointing toward the decision of Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Big 12 for the SEC.
“I was on the subcommittee to look at it,” Bowlsby said. “The tectonic plates have shifted a bit since the recommendation was made.
“That’s not a personal opinion at this point. That’s a reflection of what I’m reading in the trade publications. There’s a lot of chatter about people not being excited to move forward given what’s happened in the two weeks.”
https://247sports.com/college/texas/LongFormArticle/Recapping-a-wild-day-at-the-Texas-capitol-for-college-football-168657104/#168657104_1
LikeLike
Rumor season
LikeLike
I’d bet good money it isn’t true. I don’t think the Big Ten will take Kansas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just love a line like, “more possible than it was just 24 hours ago.” This makes him right either way.
If KU moves to the Big Ten, he can say: “I told you it was possible.”
If KU does not move to the Big Ten, he can say: “I only said it was possible, not definite.”
LikeLike
LikeLike
Smoke in Kansas, or smoke in Chicago?
LikeLike
Most of the smoke in Kansas is from the Canadian* wild fires.
If there is *any* truth to the rumor, my guess is Kansas has reached out to the Big Ten and there is a courtesy Zoom call between officials where Kansas will make a presentation on why they would be a good addition to the Big Ten. As bullish as I am on Kansas, I don’t think the Big Ten’s response to the SEC is to invite the worst P5 football program they could find. Kansas will always accept a Big Ten offer. There is no need to rush.
*University of Winnipeg to the Big 12!
LikeLike
I understand the confusion, though, since that is what the B10 did last time with RU.
It’s like we want a monopoly on historically bad CFB programs. IU, NW, and RU are the top 3 in total losses, with KU and KSU tied for 6th (WF and Tulane at 4th and 5th). ISU is 8th, NMSU 9th and Vandy 10th. All of those except Vandy and WF would accept a B10 invitation. Just saying.
LikeLike
Rumor round up.
LikeLike
The B12 wants LT and ULL but not ULM and Tulane? Why not Rice to get back to 4 in TX?
LikeLike
McMurphy’s making fun of these rumors.
LikeLike
Really? You don’t say.
But I might believe that FSU and Clemson reached out to the SEC to gauge their interest.
LikeLike
I think we forget that there are a lot of ways of gauging interest in realignment other than contacting the league directly.
More often I would bet first contact is between the president of the school looking to leave with a president of the league they wish to join.
After all that is where the infamous “tech problem” came from…
LikeLike
UT President Cunningham described a meeting with the Georgia president at a convention in around 1989 where they talked about possible UT interest in the SEC.
Also you can have members of the board meet members of the board of institutions in the other conference.
You can also have prominent boosters. Supposedly two different sets of prominent UT boosters talked to the Big 10 during the 2010 round.
Its reported that the WVU AD, before WVU officially joined the Big 12, talked to board members at FSU and Clemson about possible interest in the Big 12, before the ACC signed the GOR.
There are lots of different ways to make contact.
LikeLike
Yeah exactly, I would assume that the conference would only get involved if it’s a school they really want that contacts somebody inside and they hear from one of the conference schools “hey school X is really interested in coming and there may be a way to make this work.”
The first contact is rarely going to be the school calling the conference directly.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I challenge the assumptions he’s making. Overall the deal may be 80% football, but that isn’t true on a school by school basis. KU’s value is almost all MBB while others are almost all CFB.
UT and OU are CFB kings, so say their value is 95% CFB. That means $119M of their value was football and $6M for MBB. The original deal was $250M total, so $200M for CFB and $50M for MBB. That leaves $81M for CFB + $44M for MBB. That would average $10M per school for CFB, but KU is a hoops king and a CFB serf.
So UT + OU = 119/200 or 60% of the total B12 CFB value. Let’s assume KU is 50% of the remaining MBB value. That’s $22M. Then give them half a share in CFB, or $5M. That’s $27M in what’s left of the B12.
But KU’s value goes up if they are playing other MBB brands (MSU, IU, UMD, OSU, UM, PU, IL). So that’s puts them over $30M. And wait, because we haven’t accounted for BTN and the addition of KS and the KC market (much of which is in MO). KU makes a lot for their tier 3 rights already, so they’d be worth an equal BTN share. And KS + KC = 5-6M people.
That makes KU near the value the B10 is currently paying, just by quick math.
LikeLike
And the B12 paid out $345M last year, which is mostly from the TV deal so Mandel’s $250M number is probably low.
LikeLike
CFP money (at least 66 million) and NCAA basketball credits is probably the majority of that 95 million difference.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2020/12/21/acc-and-sec-big-winners-financially-in-2020-21-college-football-playoff/?sh=5470b97c1ee4
LikeLike
Probably, but he also took the overall average value of the deal and it should be above that average this late in the deal.
LikeLike
It seems a lot of people misunderstand the B1G’s AAU requirement. We’re told that the league won’t add schools unless they are AAU members, with Notre Dame the only known exception.
But that doesn’t mean adding AAU schools willy nilly. The school needs to add something athletically that the conference wants. The Big Ten is a sports league, with 85% of the revenue coming from football.
I don’t care if Kansas wins the NCAA basketball tournament 10 times in a row. They’ll still be representing a low-population, low-growth state, with one of the worst football programs in the power five. At least they play the sport, which is more than McGill and the University of Toronto can say.
Case Western Reserve anybody? The league needs a second Ohio school.
LikeLike
Marc, with Toronto and McGill, the market already exists for Big Ten sports. March Madness is so popular in Toronto that there is widespread loss of business productivity during the tournament, this due to people calling in sick or watching games on their office computers:
https://www.thestar.com/sports/basketball/ncaa/2021/03/22/monday-fun-day-march-madness-kicks-off-the-week.html
Canadians like American football far more than Canadian football. They’ve been trying to get the Buffalo Bills to move to Toronto for years. It appears Trump blocked the latest attempt:
https://www.thestar.com/sports/football/2017/11/05/trump-behind-movement-to-stop-bills-from-moving-to-toronto-group-says.html
Ontario, in particular, prefers American football over Canadian football:
“What’s more, Ontario seems to be one of the most promising regions for NFL growth, in which half of all football fans in the region watch the NFL, compared to just one fifth that exclusively watches the CFL. These statistics are rather surprising being as the province is home to three of the CFL’s nine franchises and no NFL teams. This shows that the NFL is indeed gaining an ever-growing presence in Canada, despite home loyalties.”
https://torontoguardian.com/2020/10/the-growth-of-the-nfl-in-canada/
Actually, it’s an ideal situation for Big Ten football. Toronto would be the third largest metro area in the B1G footprint but would have no NFL presence. We would also be gaining a huge market for Big Ten hockey in both Toronto and Montreal.
Full scholarships for athletes is the showstopper. If the Canucks can be convinced to provide NCAA type scholies for their athletes, all else would fall into place quite quickly. Heck, with today’s transfer portals, both schools could probably field competitive football teams in twelve months.
Also note that McGill has an interesting athletic history . . .
https://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/features/birth-3-sports
LikeLiked by 1 person
March Madness is so popular in Toronto that there is widespread loss of business productivity during the tournament…
Since football is 85% of the revenue, only football matters.
If the Canucks can be convinced to provide NCAA type scholies for their athletes, all else would fall into place quite quickly. Heck, with today’s transfer portals, both schools could probably field competitive football teams in twelve months.
Rutgers has been playing NCAA football since 1869, and they are the only FBS school in their state. They are still not competitive.
Look at any school anywhere that has tried to step up from FCS to FBS. It takes years to be competitive, assuming it ever happens. That is far less of a leap than creating a program where none has ever existed, and where no local high schools play the sport.
LikeLike
Marc, that isn’t true. Canadian high schools play football.
https://www.schoolsport.ca/high-school-football-in-canada/
LikeLike
Colin,
Millions of people watch March Madness and no other MBB games all year. That doesn’t help the B10 much.
The Super Bowl is popular worldwide. That doesn’t translate to CFB popularity. It’s like assuming AAA baseball will be popular somewhere because MLB is. Canadians prefer the NFL to the CFL because the NFL has better players and the US hype machine is strong.
All of Canada has 8M CFB (US, not Canadian CFB) fans. That means about 1.25M in the Toronto area. That’s for all schools combined. By proximity and alumni base size the B10 will be a decent chunk of those, but so will other national brands (ND, AL, Clemson, UT, OU, …) and non-B10 schools. So call that 500k to be generous. That’s not much.
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/eh-game/the-great-canadian-ratings-report-224629677.html
Fewer than 380,000 Canadians watched the 2016 NCG, just 68,000 more than watched the Canadian CFB championship game (which gets almost zero hype or coverage). That’s 1% of Canadians watching. By contrast 25.7M Americans watched it, or > 7.5%.
Get back to me if/when they start giving full rides and invest in their athletics programs. The football stadium seats 5000 and the team last had a winning record in 1995, including a record 49 game losing streak that was part of a 1-67 stretch over 9 seasons. Hockey seats 4100 and hasn’t won their conference since 1993.
LikeLike
Brian, college football is a club sport in Canada. Do you understand what a club sport is? My Purdue Boilermakers play 31 club sports: cricket, water polo, trap & skeet, fencing, badminton, women’s rugby, on and on. No one watches it. No one cares. They are club sports.
In a hockey-crazy country, no one watches the U of Toronto Varsity Blues hockey team. It’s a club sport. If Canadians had a NCAA Division 1 football team in play, they’d have the same fan support that American teams have.
LikeLike
No, they play intercollegiately at a level above club sports. Over 300,000 Canadians watched their CFB NCG. Name a US club sport that matches that.
What evidence is there that they would support college sports that way? It’s not their model of sports. The US model is unique and there’s no reaosn to think Canadians will fall in line once they are exposed to it. They have major junior hockey and the NHL. Toronto playing B10 hockey wouldn’t change that much if at all. They have the CFL and NFL and no history with the B10. There’s no reason to assume they have pent up demand to watch B10 teams, or US CFB in general.
LikeLike
That is not true. They play intercollegiately at the club sports level. Look, Purdue and Illinois have hockey teams and they both play intercollegiately. They play each other, Iowa, Indiana, the Southern Illinois, etc. But those schools do not play Div 1 with big salaries for coaches, recruiting budgets, etc. They are club sports.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Notre Dame et al play intercollegiately at the Div 1 level. For those schools, it is not a club sport.
LikeLike
Colin,
They give scholarships. It’s part of U Sports (was CIS – their equivalent of the NCAA). By definition that’s above club level. The Canadian universities play pre-season games against the D-I hockey teams. They lose a lot, but they play. They also have club sports.
There are some really good clubs in the US (like IL hockey which could easily follow PSU and go D-I if they had a big donor), but that’s not representative of club sports in the US.
LikeLike
It is not NCAA Div 1 nor is it NCAA Div II. It is similar to NCAA Div III and there is the same level of fan interest.
LikeLike
Nobody claimed they were D-I level. They’re above D-III because they can get scholarships. D-II might be a reasonable comparison since most athletes there get partial scholarships if anything.
That’s entirely separate from discussing the quality of play (varies from school to school at any level) or level of fan interest. There are lots of D-I sports with little fan interest – that doesn’t make them not D-I.
LikeLike
True, Div III colleges are not allowed to offer athletic scholarships. However schools can and do give financial aid through “leadership grants” and “needs based financial aid” but they are not full rides.
Div II colleges can give full ride scholies. The NCAA limits each Division II school to 36 full or partial scholarships per year. Good example is the Div II Ivy League which does indeed give full rides.
Canadian schools are essentially identical to the NCAA Div III model.
LikeLike
It’s simple:
Tulane to get New Orleans/LA
Rice to get Houston/TX
Emory to get Atlanta/GA
Washington U to get St. Louis/MO
Buffalo to get NY
BU, Brandeis, IT and Tufts to get Boston/MA
NYU and Stony Brook to solidify NYC
Carnegie Mellon and Case Western to solidify PA and OH
Fully onboard Johns Hopkins to solidify Baltimore/MD
Bring back U Chicago to solidify Chicago/IL
And then ask ND to join and make an even 30.
The B10 would add the south and southeast as well as the northeast and solidify their hold on the footprint. And the B10 would dominate federal research funding.
LikeLike
Case Western Reserve could resume their rivalry with Ohio State. They are the only Ohio football team with an all-time winning record vs. the Buckeyes (6–5–1).
LikeLike
Hell yeah, bring CMU back to the big time.
Case can’t seem to decide whether it wants to abandon the OAC or the PAC, and unless Emory, NYU, and Brandeis add football – where is the money?
And poor Rochester as the only UAA school without a home, maybe they become WVU’s eastern dance partner in the Big 12?
LikeLike
Heck just let the UAA be more content in the B10 channel.
The last CMU football game I can remember being televised was the Diskette Day game against Case in 1987 and the last basketball game I know of was in 1989 at NYU when NYU had 5 games/year on MSG.
LikeLike
Sure, NYU dropped football in 1952 but they could revive it with B10 money coming in. Besides, they wrestle and that’s the important thing (how else will they get ccrider55’s approval?). Half of the UAA plays football, so they can convince the other half.
LikeLike
Damn right!
LikeLike
Go NYU Violets. We won a national championship in girls Division III volleyball a number of years ago. Yes, I remember those glory days (even though it was long after I graduated from law school).
Turn Washington Square Park into a football stadium. It has become a drug den recently anyway.
LikeLike
When I was there 3 years ago it was fine. People still playing chess.
LikeLike
Poor choices. RPI to get upstate New York and NYU paired with Fordham for NYC!
Maybe even poach Penn from the IVy to get a stronger grip on Philly.
LikeLike
Don’t be silly. The B10 can’t poach the Ivy League. Otherwise I would’ve listed Cornell to get that mid-state NY market.
LikeLike
RPI brings nothing but hockey. Union has better football and hockey.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31951021/the-ohio-valley-conference-sues-eastern-kentucky-jacksonville-state-exit-fees
For those who think the B12 would or should settle with UT and OU, read this. The OVC is suing EKU and JSU for not paying their $1M in exit fees.
LikeLike
If you’re gonna aim for dream schools that aren’t going to happen, why waste your time with Toronto or McGill?
Invite Harvard and Yale.
LikeLike
Heck, dream big. Oxford and Cambridge, Sorbonne and Ecole Polytechnique, Heidelberg and LMU Munich (or Technical University of Munich). We use the NFL’s move to Europe to lay the groundwork for B10 football there. And think of the research possibilities.
LikeLike
Dodd with a PAC12 centric update. Excerpts:
– Ohio State and Michigan have no interest in leaving the Big Ten.
– “We’re listening [to what’s going on elsewhere],” a high-profile USC official told CBS Sports. “We’re just trying to listen and learn like everybody else.”
-“I have taken the stance that we’re not going to be reactively poaching any schools,” Kliavkoff said. “What I will say is that my phone has exploded the last five days [after the Texas/Oklahoma news broke]. Blown up. We are having inbounds from lots and lots of schools.
– Industry sources tell CBS Sports there is no combination of remaining Big 12 schools that would bring value to the Pac-12.
-“Historically, USC has had a close nexus with Stanford, UCLA, Washington,” said a veteran source with USC ties. “Academic and athletic success. I don’t see [USC] vacating the West Coast. Where would they go? It’s just so far to travel.”
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-rankings-alabama-tops-clemson-in-preseason-cbs-sports-130-ahead-of-2021-season/
LikeLike
Some other key bits:
The Big Ten doesn’t have to make a move. Remember the value of Ohio State and Michigan. The league’s footprint already contains a quarter of the United States population. Plus, the Big Ten is seemingly in line for a significant TV revenue bump when its current contract with ESPN and Fox expires in 2023. Former commissioner Jim Delany was wise enough to sign only a six-year deal in 2017 so his conference could get to the open market ahead of the Big 12 and Pac-12. Any speculation about adding Pac-12 schools to the Big Ten starts with those additions bringing at least $60 million worth of annual value to the Big Ten contract. (That’s assuming even a conservative increase in the Big Ten’s current deal in 2023.)
…
It’s safe to say the Pac-12 can’t wait until the end of its current media rights deal in 2024 to make a move. The collection of West Coast schools still has value because of their “hegemony,” according to a veteran of media rights negotiations. The combination of the Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver and Seattle TV markets is significant. That source added that there was no value in any current Power Five conference “stretching” across the country to get Pac-12 schools.
“When you’re in our conference, you have a golden ticket,” Kliavkoff said. “People don’t give up golden tickets.
“If that decision [to leave] is made, it’s for short-term financial gain, which by the way, I think would be a long-term financial loss. It would be made giving up everything else our conference brings.”
That’s good news for those speculating about a Big Ten reach to the West Coast. However, there is a combination of four Pac-12 schools out there (including USC) that would be a good academic and athletic fit for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The first thing the Pac should do is market the PTN and sell it to a company that can either generate more carriage (ESPN or FOX) or to a streaming company.
The PTN may be just the type of underperforming package (cheap) for any one of Amazon, Apple, or Netflix to dip their toe in the water of CFB.
LikeLike
A conference network needs a Sugar Daddy. B1G has Fox. SEC has ESPN. That way they can bundle the conference network with other programming and sell it to the Comcasts and the Spectrums as a Full Meal Deal.
The PAC-12 Network doesn’t have that. They tried to go it alone and that’s why they have flopped. Perhaps they should just try to sell half of the PAC-12 Network to Fox. Fox could then have a “Superconference Network” that combined the programming of the BTN and the P12N without having to combine the two conferences together.
LikeLike
Just show old Rose Bowl games, over and over. Everyone will be happy.
LikeLike
Perhaps neither Fox nor ESPN wanted the P12N. My guess is they offered a low number so the P12 decided to try it on their own.
LikeLike
Alan,
They certainly need to do something. The P12N as it exists now generates way too little revenue. It has served its primary purpose of getting the Olympic sports broader coverage, but the presidents now realize they need more from it.
.
LikeLike
Brian, isn’t that what I done told you? Listen up this time, OK?
“A conference network needs a Sugar Daddy. B1G has Fox. SEC has ESPN. That way they can bundle the conference network with other programming and sell it to the Comcasts and the Spectrums as a Full Meal Deal.”
A consolidated BTN-P12N would have four time zones, five football games every autumn Saturday, another five of FS1, Thursday games, Friday night games, Sunday games. It could swamp the SEC Network.
LikeLike
Colin,
The Pac exploded,and turned down, sugar daddy interest less than two years ago. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/pac-12-declines-to-sell-ownership-in-media-rights-to-a-private-equity-firm-but-search-for-a-partner-continues/%3famp=1
While as.yet the financial value has not been as high as others it still is the conference’s network. While labeled SECN or ACCN they are both basically broadcast rights agreements with an espn dedicated channel. BTN was 51%-49% conf/fox ownership at the start, with fox immediately when the option opened extended the agreement and moved to the majority ownership position. I forget the expiration date of that agreement. Point is that there is value and control with ownership that both fox and espn covet. Pac knows this but is hamstrung a bit out on the left coast. One of those who formed the BTN said a do over would be 100% self owned. I suggest that sec is getting a premium deal from espn in part to dissuade a true conf owned network (their membership soon would be impressive enough that nationwide demand wouldn’t require espn leverage to market).
LikeLike
No no no. A “private equity firm” is not a Sugar Daddy like Fox or ESPN. They are venture capitalists willing to gamble the conference network on some marketing scheme. They cannot bundle the P12N with other programming like Fox News, FS1, etc.
LikeLike
(Line one:
The Pac explored…
🙄
LikeLike
ccrider55,
Maybe in a redo now, the B10 would do 100% ownership. But I recall the fights for initial carriage when nobody knew what conference networks were. They needed Fox back then. They still have to fight in some places.
LikeLike
5-6 years ago I would have agreed Brian.
But now I’m not so sure; with cord cutting and all, having a half of the payments be stable annual rights fees mitigates the downside risk of cord cutting and all.
BTN has lost millions of subs over the past few years (as has SECN); there may likely be a point at which the profitability from the network is a bit lower per school than the annual rights fee we’re guaranteed before profit sharing (49% to Big Ten, 51% to Fox).
LikeLike
Brian,
Now, and when he was helping/advising P12N formation.
Or perhaps the current association with fox is mutually beneficial enough to continue when current arrangement expires?
LikeLike
Z33k,
“ …having a half of the payments be stable annual rights fees mitigates the downside risk…”
You don’t think the fox payments are, at least in part, dependent on carriage?
LikeLike
z33k,
I think cord cutting is overhyped. Yes, networks have lost viewers. But prices have also gone up. In recent years ESPN has seen their revenue increase despite the cutters. BTN is available on multiple streaming services. It may even become possible to subscribe directly to BTN.
But while it’s cost subscribers, I’m not convinced cord cutters were sports viewers. Streaming is a tiny portion of viewership. Most cord cutters don’t care about live sports.
I would think Fox protected itself against a loss of subscribers.
LikeLike
Silverman had said that BTN has about 60 million subs. They’ve maintained that amount with cord cutting. It might be a little lower now but not much.
I do know quite a few people that only have a Netflix or Prime subscription and don’t watch much TV anymore.
The younger generations are not into cable or TV for that matter. Not sure how they consume sports, if at all.
LikeLike
They have an internet connection and then sign on with their father’s username and password for access to all of his cable channels.
I’m just guessing…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Now, and when he was helping/advising P12N formation.”
But after seeing others succeed. That’s my point.
“Or perhaps the current association with fox is mutually beneficial enough to continue when current arrangement expires?”
The deal ends in 2032. Who knows what might make sense then? Having a partner may still have value in terms of getting on streaming services and into streaming apps.
LikeLike
You told me the P12N wasn’t making enough money? No, I’m pretty sure I knew that years ago.
A consolidated BTN/P12N would be worse. Nobody cares about the P12N, that’s why they can’t get carriage. B10 fans wouldn’t want half the time wasted on P12 teams. P12 fans wouldn’t want to watch the B10. That would just be Fox helping the P12N, and I’m not convinced there’s enough money in that for them to bother with it.
LikeLike
Colin,
“ No no no. A “private equity firm” is not a Sugar Daddy like Fox or ESPN.”
Yes, they absolutely are the equivalent of a sugar daddy, hiring them almost solely for the money. Fox/espn are more like a madam running brothels and higher class escort service – the schools are simply being arranged into what the madam thinks will be most profitable for her.
LikeLike
Poaching schools from the PAC12 is not going to happen; they will hang together. But, USC and UCLA (and others) are unhappy about the payouts they get, so they might be open a scheduling deal that regularly brings B1G football teams west and sends PAC12 teams east. USC@Penn St is sellable as are many other combos. And a scheduling agreement could be limited to most valuable games. No need to schedule Rutgers@Or St, unless they got uppity.
There’s enough money in football to support transcontinental travel, and teams do a lot of it anyway.
And the scheduling agreement could be limited to football and mens’ basketball. Maryland@UCLA would be an attractive basketball matchup. The Olympic sports could stay in conference.
LikeLike
Bob,
What the upside for the B10 in that deal? We can get those OOC games now.
Or would they replace conference games and still count in the standings? That might be interesting.
LikeLike
That’s exactly the problem.
Why would the Big Ten agree to a scheduling alliance when we benefit more from actually absorbing the schools into the Big Ten and then expanding the BTN footprint and all the other synergies.
Scheduling alliances just don’t make as much sense; there’s a reason the SEC and Big Ten have been taking teams whole to try to incorporate their territories/fanbases/value into the conference. You just don’t get that with a scheduling alliance.
LikeLike
Industry sources tell CBS Sports there is no combination of remaining Big 12 schools that would bring value to the Pac-12.
If that is true, then I cannot think of any other switch within the Power Five that would make sense. We’ll most likely see the Big 12 poach however many G5 schools as they can justify. I am sure they will at least go back up to twelve.
This probably won’t happen for a little while. Those schools will always be there, so there’s no need to rush into anything.
LikeLike
I agree.
It’ll be interesting to see how large the B12 chooses to become. Stay at 8 and play just 7 games with a CCG? Do they stop at 9 so they can play 8 games and keep the CCG? Do they go back to 10 to keep the same format? What about 12 with divisions?
Fewer games makes it easier to keep a good record, plus it frees up OOC games to play UT or OU. It also leaves room to play more outside brands like the P12, ND or BYU. And fewer teams means more appearances for the smaller brands. They do need enough games to provide the contracted inventory to Fox/ESPN or they’ll lose money, though.
12:
W – TT, TCU, Baylor, OkSU + UH + BYU
E – ISU, KU, KSU, WV + UCF + UC
I just picked 4. They might choose others instead (USF?, Memphis?). USF would obviously go in the East. If need be, ISU or the KS schools could shift.
10:
TT, TCU, Baylor, OkSU, ISU, KU, KSU, WV + UH + UC
9:
TT, TCU, Baylor, OkSU, ISU, KU, KSU, WV + UH
LikeLike
If the SEC goes to 9 or even 10 conference games, and if others follow suit, then it will be a huge challenge to get 5 OOC games scheduled against attractive opponents. Scheduling FCS opponents, which almost every Big XII school does, makes the league look even weaker.
I wonder if there is value in expanding east only and not adding BYU. Try to build a bridge to WVU and have a more cohesive footprint.
Ideally, the Pac would fall apart and someone like ASU would be a prize addition, but that doesn’t seem likely short term, so no real benefit to waiting/hoping it happens.
LikeLike
Assuming no other conference will take any of the remaining 8, if I’m the B-12, I go to 12 schools with BYU & Boise (football only), Houston and Cincy; have an eight game schedule; schedule two OOCs with SEC, B1G, PAC, or ACC; and then hope that’s enough to stay in Power 5 and get some TV network to give me $25m per school (with a reduced amount going to BYU & Boise).
I suggested that the B-12 take BYU & Boise as football-only members several years ago. Now, it makes more sense than ever.
Even though Houston isn’t that popular in Houston, another Texas school gives everyone more games in Texas. In Cincy, WVA finally has a travel partner.
I think UCF and USF are a bridge too far, but the existing Texas schools may not want Houston. If so, take UCF as a football only member. The Knights can always join the A-Sun in other sports.
The SEC may be amenable to some sort of scheduling arrangement with the remaining 8 as part of a negotiated settlement to allow OU & UT to join the SEC in 2022. OU & UT currently have the following OOC games scheduled with SEC opponents: OU – UGA 23, @Tenn 24, LSU 27, @LSU 28, @UGA 31, Bama 32, and @Bama 33 UT – owes LSU a home game from 2020, Bama 22, @Bama 23, UGA 28, @UGA 29, @UF 30, and UF31.
LikeLike
BYU has a better football schedule as an independent than the Big XII leftovers could offer. they also have their own TV deal with ESPN.
2021 BYU Football Schedule
Date Opponent Stadium Location
Sat., Sept. 4 vs. Arizona Allegiant Stadium Las Vegas, Nevada
Sat., Sept. 11 Utah LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Sept. 18 Arizona State LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Sept 25 South Florida LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Fri., Oct. 1 Utah State Maverik Stadium Logan Utah
Sat., Oct. 9 Boise State LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Oct. 16 at Baylor McLane Stadium Waco, Texas
Sat., Oct. 23 at Washington State Martin Stadium Pullman, Washington
Sat., Oct. 30 Virginia LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Nov. 6 Idaho State LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah
Sat., Nov. 20 at Georgia Southern Paulson Stadium Statesboro, Georgia
Sat., Nov. 27 at USC LA Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles, California
LikeLike
I wonder if there is value in expanding east only and not adding BYU. Try to build a bridge to WVU and have a more cohesive footprint.
Putting it politely, WVU is screwed. Without an ACC invite, they have no better conference to be in. So, the B12 won’t add schools just to make WVU’s travel easier. They are going to add the schools that attract the best TV deal imaginable.
Ideally, the Pac would fall apart and someone like ASU would be a prize addition, but that doesn’t seem likely short term…
That doesn’t seem likely in any term, short or long.
LikeLike
Logan,
I don’t see the SEC or anyone else going to 10 games. Schools want 7 home games and the ability to schedule some good OOC home and home series. 9 is the limit for that.
5 OOC games can still be tough, but BYU is a ready source. Army is always a fun game. NMSU is right there. Liberty always wants games. UMass and UConn get desperate too. Get the early games against the P5 and other conferences then fill in with 1-2 of the independents.
I don’t know which schools have the most value for the B12, so I just picked 4. Going just east might work (Memphis, UC, UCF & USF). UH might be redundant. BYU is quasi-national with their religious base, but it doesn’t guarantee they’d be a good fit. Or maybe they should go coast to coast to maximize time windows.
“Ideally, the Pac would fall apart”
Ideally for the B12, you mean.
LikeLike
In Cincy, WV finally has a travel partner.
The value of a so-called travel partner is often exaggerated. In football, it is one game every other year. In most other sports, it’s at most one game a year. Cincy might get a B12 invite simply because they are a good school to have, but they won’t get an invite to make WV happier.
LikeLike
Exactly. Travel partners are for other sports (like MBB) where you can play 2 games in 3 days and one trip gets you 2 road games.
LikeLike
How much difference is there really between UCF and Boise? Or between Houston and Cincinnati? We’ve seen that none of the remaining 8 in the Big 12 were anywhere close to Texas and OU in terms of TV ratings. I’m not sure it matters too much which schools are added since none of these are home runs.
In terms of actual dollars, what is the difference between the best 4 options, and 4 that make some geographic sense and cut travel costs for non-revenue sports? Is it more than a million dollars per school per year? I’m not sure.
BYU might be special, but they are a geographic outlier for every non-revenue sport and a scheduling headache due to the Sunday thing. Football only for them and Boise is an intriguing option, Alan.
“Ideally for the B12, you mean.”
LOL, of course. If the B1G took the AAU schools from the Pac, then a leftover like ASU would be preferable to Houston or Cincinnati. But it’s clear that’s not happening, so there is no reason for the Big 12 to wait.
“I don’t see the SEC or anyone else going to 10 games.”
The Thamel/Wetzel/Forde podcast mentioned 10 games. They talked about what it would cost schools like Georgia that have their rivarly with Tech. It would eliminate things like the Notre Dame series they just had. I have to think 9 will happen to make for a cohesive conference, and 10 might be more likely than 8.
LikeLike
Logan,
The differences between their expansion options aren’t current revenue so much as for the future. Where do they want to be geographically (E vs W, N vs S)? Do they want/need another TX school for recruiting or ticket sales? Do they want/need FL access? Which schools have potential to grow? FSU wasn’t always a power. Can UCF make that climb? Is UC limited by the shadow of OSU, plus having ND, UK, UL and IU so close? Can BYU build a national brand again?
“The Thamel/Wetzel/Forde podcast mentioned 10 games. They talked about what it would cost schools like Georgia that have their rivarly with Tech. It would eliminate things like the Notre Dame series they just had.”
It would put those ACC/SEC rivalries in jeopardy. UGA already has a locked neutral site rivalry with UF. Do they want a second one with GT? Do they keep playing at GT? Do they drop the series? They certainly wouldn’t play any more good OOC home and home series. They might play a “neutral” site OOC game in Atlanta, but that would be it. They’d have to be forced into 10. UGA would never do it voluntarily.
“I have to think 9 will happen to make for a cohesive conference, and 10 might be more likely than 8.”
It all depends how they schedule.
8 = 1 locked rival + 7/14 remaining (see everyone in 2 yrs)
8 = 2 locked rivals + 6/13 remaining (see everyone in 3 yrs)
8 = 3 in pod + 4 in another pod + 1/8 (see everyone in 3 yrs)
8 = 3 in pod + 3 (1/4 from each pod) + 2/9 (see everyone in 4 yrs)
8 = 7 in division + 1/8 crossover (see everyone in 8 yrs)
9 = 7 in division + 2/8 crossovers (see everyone in 4 yrs)
9 = 3 in pod + 4 in another pod + 2/8 (see everyone in 3 yrs)
9 = 3 in pod + 6 (2/4 from each pod) (see everyone in 2 yrs)
They’ve been perfectly fine with 6 + 1 locked + 1/6 rotating (see everyone in 6 years), so I could see them sticking with 8.
LikeLike
Brian – “They’ve been perfectly fine with 6 + 1 locked + 1/6 rotating (see everyone in 6 years)…”
No, they have NOT. The one locked OOD rotation only appeases Auburn/Georgia and Alabama/Tennessee. The others are either against it or don’t really care, although I’m sure Ole Miss likes playing Vandy every year.
The last time the SEC formally considered the scheduling format, some schools against the one locked OOD “rivalry” still voted to keep it as they knew it would not pass.
It’s really a moot point though, even if the SEC keeps divisions. Move Mizzou to the West, insert OU & UT in the West, and move Alabama & Auburn to the East. Presto! AUB/UGA & BAMA/TENN are now division mates.
I really feel like (and hope) ESPN will require a nine game schedule in exchange for boosting revenue. Also, over the last several years SEC fans have voted on the cupcakes and rent-a-wins by not showing up to those games, resulting in loss of hot dog & t-shirt revenue.
The coaches won’t get to dictate terms this time around. It’s about way more than bowl eligibility and the paltry payout at the Birmingham Bowl.
LikeLike
“Do they want/need FL access? Which schools have potential to grow? FSU wasn’t always a power. Can UCF make that climb?”
Given the changing landscape the the Big 12’s position in the conference hierarchy, can they afford to take a long-term view? The problem is that all these programs are one bad coach away from irrelevance and being a drag on the conference or one good coach away from being perennial playoff participants. Is Bob Bowlsby or Fox/ESPN capable of picking out the options that are more likely to succeed than not? I’m not sure.
Mizzou spent an extra $1m a year in travel expenses after joining the Big 12. With the size of TV contract they will be looking at (assuming exit fees are not shared with new members), I don’t think any of them move the need that much. Maybe you stay compact with the likes of Houston and Tulsa, or at least schools in major cities that are easy to travel to.
“The one locked OOD rotation only appeases Auburn/Georgia and Alabama/Tennessee. The others are either against it or don’t really care, although I’m sure Ole Miss likes playing Vandy every year.”
Mizzou-Arkansas makes sense – plus we’ve beat them 5 times in a row – but only because Mizzou was shunted into the East division to make everyone else happy. But your solution of moving to the West would solve that.
LikeLike
Alan,
The fans may not be happy, but the SEC has been. They’ve repeatedly chosen to stay at 8 games when schools have brought up going to 9. UF and UGA really don’t want a 9th game with a locked neutral site game plus locked OOC rivals. UK and SC also prefer 8 due to a locked OOC rival. OU will be in that boat as well, though I doubt UT will be. 5 out of 14 can put it off for a long time.
They will do it for enough more money, but they aren’t worried about hot dogs and single ticket sales. Get back to me when donors stop donating and buying PSLs for season tickets.
LikeLike
@Brian – Just my impression, but it seems as if though the coaches have more power in the SEC (or at least their input is taken more seriously). I recall James Franklin’s quote from a couple of weeks ago comparing his time in the SEC at Vandy versus in the Big Ten at Penn State and how coaches in both conferences pretty much unanimously wanted only 8 conference games. Yet, the Big Ten went the other direction. I think the Big Ten leadership legitimately wants everyone to play each other regularly even if it’s at the expense of worse playoff chances, whereas the SEC wants to maximize their playoff chances and will provide the schedule to do so. It seems that the presidents (or at least higher level administrators) and ADs drive the scheduling decisions in the Big Ten (while the coaches are on the sidelines – no pun intended), whereas the ADs and coaches work on the scheduling decisions in the SEC (while the presidents get out of the way). Once again, that’s totally my impression of how things seem to shake out (so I might be way off on the reality).
That being said, I could see how the SEC might be shifting that stance with the combination of bringing in UT and OU and the proposed 12-team playoff. They may very well look at 9 conference games as being more viable now in that structure. Maybe I’m naive (and I’m typically clear-eyed about what maximizes revenue), but there’s a certain point where conference mates actually need to play each other more than once a decade or else it’s not really a conference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Logan,
If there’s no short term difference, than why wouldn’t they consider the long term as a tiebreaker
Being compact and looking at travel costs is part of the short term calculation. If after that there still are no differences, then you look at the long term. Long term is all educated guesswork, but at least they tried.
Major cities that are easy to get to? Like Orlando (UCF)? Tampa (USF)? Cincinnati (medium Delta hub)? Memphis? Houston? Salt Lake City (BYU)? That doesn’t seem to be narrowing it down much.
LikeLike
Brian – good point! It’s actually mostly the Big 12 schools that are small college towns in the middle of nowhere, aside from TCU.
LikeLike
We always say expansion is all about football. But the less money you get for football, the more important basketball is (both in TV payments and NCAA tournament shares). Keeping a high quality basketball league has to be a part of BIg 12 calculations going forward.
It’s more reason to think Cincinnati is the most obvious choice when expanding: It’s got football, basketball, geographically brings WVU to the rest of the conference, and seems to have a decent fanbase for a midmajor. If they get Cincinnati in, they can then justify a football-centric school like UCF.
LikeLike
m(Ag),
“We always say expansion is all about football. But the less money you get for football, the more important basketball is (both in TV payments and NCAA tournament shares).”
True, but the B12 hopes to make enough from CFB to not have MBB become important. Hoops is big for G5 and lower conferences.
“Keeping a high quality basketball league has to be a part of BIg 12 calculations going forward.”
It should be for everyone. Even the SEC has worked to improve.
“It’s more reason to think Cincinnati is the most obvious choice when expanding: It’s got football, basketball, geographically brings WVU to the rest of the conference, and seems to have a decent fanbase for a midmajor. If they get Cincinnati in, they can then justify a football-centric school like UCF.”
MBB is the easiest sport to improve quickly. Get 1 star player and you are competitive. All of their options offer different combos of things. Memphis is also good at hoops. So is BYU.
One big drawback of UC is that it is surrounded by other I-A schools – OSU to the NE, UK to the S, UL to the SW, IU to the W, PU to the NW and ND to the NW (farther away but a major recruiter from the Catholic schools that dominate Cincinnati HS football). It’s tough to recruit for CFB and MBB in that environment.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree, the powers behind scheduling seem to differ in the SEC and B10. The SEC figured they can win more with 8 and that was it. I think the SEC was also sympathetic to the 4 schools with locked ACC rivalries and didn’t want to lock up 10 games for them.
The B10 was more willing to tell Iowa it was their problem that they also play ISU every year. Maybe if it was 4 of 14 schools it might have been different?
“That being said, I could see how the SEC might be shifting that stance with the combination of bringing in UT and OU and the proposed 12-team playoff. They may very well look at 9 conference games as being more viable now in that structure. Maybe I’m naive (and I’m typically clear-eyed about what maximizes revenue), but there’s a certain point where conference mates actually need to play each other more than once a decade or else it’s not really a conference.”
I believe they are considering it, but I also believe they are looking at a variety of scheduling models. 8 games can work if they don’t keep divisions.
Divisions: 8 = 7 + 1/8 (8 yrs to see everyone)
Pods to make divisions: 8 = 3 + 4 in another pod + 1/8 (3 yrs to see everyone)
Pods for scheduling: 8 = 3 + 3 (1 from each pod) + 2/9 (3 yrs to see everyone)
Locked rivals: 8 = 3 + 5/12 (3 yrs to see everyone)
Going to 9:
Divisions: 9 = 7 + 1 locked + 1/7 (7 yrs to see everyone)
Divisions: 9 = 7 + 2/8 (4 yrs to see everyone)
Pods to make divisions: 9 = 3 + 4 in another pod + 2/8 (2 yrs to see everyone)
Pods for scheduling: 9 = 3 + 3 (1 from each pod) + 3/9 (2 yrs to see everyone)
Locked rivals: 9 = 3 + 6/12 (2 yrs to see everyone)
Since they’ve been seeing each other every 6 years, staying with 8 seems possible if they drop fixed divisions. If they want fixed divisions, then they’ll need to move to 9 games. Or if ESPN offers to pay them enough.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31957546/american-commissioner-mike-aresco-denies-collusion-add-big-12-teams
The AAC denies colluding with ESPN. Collude vs consult – it’s a fine line but legally defensible without detailed proof.
“Our conference has never strategically aligned or plotted with ESPN to influence conference structures,” Aresco said during a virtual media day event. “We wouldn’t do that, ESPN has never done that and would not do it. We do consult with our television and business partners on issues related to our conference; everyone does. But any suggestions or statements that we colluded with ESPN with regard to the structure of any other conference is a completely unfounded and grossly irresponsible accusation, and that’s all I really have to say about this at this point.”
LikeLike
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. 😉
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/2745528/2021/08/02/sec-considering-9-game-conference-schedule-in-football-when-texas-and-oklahoma-arrive-team-sources-say-heres-how-it-could-look/
When the Sooners and Longhorns arrive in the SEC — no later than July 1, 2025, but a settlement might get them there sooner — the SEC may begin playing nine conference games in football.
Note that they may move to 9 – it isn’t for sure.
LikeLike
I think (and hope) ESPN will require it as part of annual $80m payments.
LikeLike
Alan,
They might. But what if ESPN offers $70M for 8 games? How much more do they have to offer for the SEC to move to 9? Or does the SEC now want 9, and is just waiting for ESPN to say okay?
LikeLike
The SEC won’t go to 9 games without getting paid, but I think ESPN would oblige. Most SEC teams play 3 cupcakes. Replace one of these with a conference opponent, and their inventory gets a lot better. Prohibit I-AA games (as the Big Ten did), and it gets better still.
LikeLike
I think espn would insist.
LikeLike
Even ESPN has budget limits. They might prefer 8 since they also need to pay UT and OU – it depends what contracts they decide to rework and which they don’t.
They still have to find windows for non-SEC games they are obligated to show.
LikeLike
I feel like the Big 12 schools should just wait a year or two and then figure out their next move.
We’re going to find out in the next 12-18 months what the Big Ten and Pac-12 plans are…
I’ve completely talked myself into the possibility of USC/UCLA leading upwards to 6 or 7 other Pac-12 schools to consider joining the Big Ten (mostly because the money makes sense and the playoff contract is up so things will probably work out even for superlarge conferences like the SEC or an enlarged Big Ten). Maybe there’s a low chance of it happening, but if it does, you could have schools like Arizona State and Utah available to the Big 12, which are better than most of their other options.
LikeLike
It will be all the PAC12 or nothing to the B1G.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s opener will be streaming only.
https://sports.yahoo.com/notre-dames-home-opener-to-broadcast-exclusively-on-peacock-streaming-service-170048166.html
In and of itself its not a big deal, but there was also news that ESPN+ will be airing SEC games (1 OOC if I remember correctly) for the first time this year and Paramount+ will be simulcasting regional NFL games. I wonder if we’ll see CBS and NBC make a run at the Big Ten* and PAC12 rights to drive subscriptions to their streaming services. Will Fox insist on streaming games on FoxNation?
*Any non-Fox entity would have to buy out FOX’s share of the BTN (no less than 600 million IMO) to show the lower tier games
LikeLike
Well the B12N is ESPN+, so streaming isn’t brand new. And schools were doing PPV before that. I suppose you can stream all the crap games if you want, but there will be a revolt when good games become subscription streaming only.
Not many people paid for Peacock to stream the Olympics, so they’re trying it again. Like ND-Toledo is going to push people into subscribing regularly. A few will pay for 1 month to watch the game, but most people will ignore it like any ND-Toledo game.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31958544/after-texas-announces-departure-big-12-takes-chris-del-conte-college-football-playoff-selection-committee
UT’s AD has been pulled from the CFP committee. For some reason the B12 didn’t think he was the right representative for them.
LikeLike
Posted this in the previous thread, but I’ve been so interested in this topic since it reemerged again I couldn’t help but post it again here (I’m a Penn State fan and enjoyed this site back in the Big10’s Rutgers/Maryland expansion era).
I don’t see how the Big10 can sit by and do nothing. If not, the SEC will have free reign (abetted by ESPN) to declare themselves the only conference that really matters, perhaps breaking away from the NCAA on their own. After a decade of so of that, there would be real pressure on a team like Ohio State to break off and join the SEC. The goal for the Big10 has to be getting the cream of the Pac12 and Notre Dame on board. Notre Dame is the hardest nut to crack, but I think even they would feel compelled to join a coast-to-coast Big10 when the only other options are joining an SEC Super-conference, or remaining independent and likely losing out on a ton of television money.
Get the Pac12 schools first, then wait out the ACC’s GOR and try to entice ND by allowing it to choose two teams to bring with it from the ACC (I would go with GT and FSU, which is probably a big enough fish that the lack of AAU status can be ignored; or you could do UVA/UNC but I don’t think they would have as much appeal to ND). Notre Dame gets a national schedule, with great access to the East Coast, access to the west coast, a good number of traditional opponents at least semi-regularly (Purdue, Michigan, Mich. State, Ga. Tech., USC, Stanford). The Big10 can set it self up as the anti-SEC (i.e., not completely abandon the academic side of things) and establish itself as the premier set of academic universities (other than the Ivy League).
Here’s where I would like to see things go (assuming pods that are paired and rotate every three years, perhaps with some fixed cross-pod match ups, but tons of other possibilities):
West Pod: USC – UCLA – Cal – Stanford – Washington -Oregon
Plains Pod: Nebraska – Wisconsin – Iowa – Minnesota – Colorado – Illinois
Great Lakes Pod: Michigan – MSU – Ohio State – Purdue – Indiana – NW
East Pod: PSU – Rutgers – Maryland – Notre Dame – GA. Tech – Florida State
LikeLike
ND doesn’t want to join a conference in football, period. It doesn’t make any difference if the B1G gets GT or FSU or UVA or UNC. ND doesn’t want to join the ACC, the SEC, the B1G, the B12 or the PAC-12 as a full member. They want to squeal that they are a ‘national university’ that goes ‘barnstorming’.
They have long wanted to find a P5 conference dumb enough to allow them to join in Olympic sports only. The B1G told them to ‘shove it’ but then they found the John Swofford ACC. They have no intention of joining the ACC in football.
LikeLike
Steve,
“I don’t see how the Big10 can sit by and do nothing.”
Isn’t it better to do nothing than rush into an action that hurts you long term just to be doing something? There don’t seem to be any possible moves that make financial sense for the B10 right now.
“If not, the SEC will have free reign (abetted by ESPN) to declare themselves the only conference that really matters,”
They already do this, and the B10 has survived.
“perhaps breaking away from the NCAA on their own.”
Great! No NCAA member would be allowed to play them, so it would be an isolated league of 16. The NCAA schools would have a CFP with no SEC and the winner would be the national champion. Then we’d be back to the polls deciding the “true” champion, and some split titles.
“After a decade of so of that, there would be real pressure on a team like Ohio State to break off and join the SEC.”
No, there wouldn’t be. OSU would focus on winning the B10 and the NCAA-related title. The only thing that would pressure OSU would be a large financial gap and OSU being expected to play against the SEC teams for a title.
“The goal for the Big10 has to be getting the cream of the Pac12 and Notre Dame on board.”
The experts say adding the P12 schools doesn’t make financial sense. ND isn’t even an option until 2036, and even then they’d have to want to join.
“Notre Dame is the hardest nut to crack, but I think even they would feel compelled to join a coast-to-coast Big10 when the only other options are joining an SEC Super-conference, or remaining independent and likely losing out on a ton of television money.”
ND has happily lost out on TV money for a long time. They will only feel compelled to join a conference if nobody is willing to give their other sports a home like the ACC has, or if their alumni and donors decide they’d prefer being in a conference. Like if the 12-team CFP format makes them want the ability to get a bye enough to tolerate being in a football conference.
“Get the Pac12 schools first, then wait out the ACC’s GOR and try to entice ND by allowing it to choose two teams to bring with it from the ACC (I would go with GT and FSU, which is probably a big enough fish that the lack of AAU status can be ignored; or you could do UVA/UNC but I don’t think they would have as much appeal to ND).”
If the whole goal is ND, why not wait until 2032 and then ask ND if they would be interested. If so, let them choose up to 5 other teams from the P12 or ACC. There’s no point adding schools that cost you money on the chance ND becomes interested.
There is no way of knowing if the COP/C would accept FSU. There are rumors that they wouldn’t.
“Notre Dame gets a national schedule, with great access to the East Coast, access to the west coast, a good number of traditional opponents at least semi-regularly (Purdue, Michigan, Mich. State, Ga. Tech., USC, Stanford).”
It already has all of this.
“The Big10 can set it self up as the anti-SEC (i.e., not completely abandon the academic side of things) and establish itself as the premier set of academic universities (other than the Ivy League).”
Again, this is already happening.
“Here’s where I would like to see things go (assuming pods that are paired and rotate every three years, perhaps with some fixed cross-pod match ups, but tons of other possibilities):
West Pod: USC – UCLA – Cal – Stanford – Washington -Oregon
Plains Pod: Nebraska – Wisconsin – Iowa – Minnesota – Colorado – Illinois
Great Lakes Pod: Michigan – MSU – Ohio State – Purdue – Indiana – NW
East Pod: PSU – Rutgers – Maryland – Notre Dame – GA. Tech – Florida State”
Why use pods when locked rivals are more efficient? Do you want divisions, or are you assuming that divisions are required?
* CU joined the P12 to get closer to their alumni. You just moved them further into the midwest than they used to be.
* You pulled IL away from their rivals.
* PSU considers OSU a rival and would want that game maintained.
* ND would demand locked games with USC and Stanford and would prefer to play many of the Great lakes teams.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31964686/the-ncaa-speed-investigation-major-infractions-cases-some-which-lingered-years
The NCAA says it will handle major infractions cases faster.
On Wednesday, the Division I board of directors approved immediate changes that will allow the IARP’s complex case unit to accept the investigative work of the NCAA’s enforcement staff “unless the unit can demonstrate a compelling reason why additional investigation is required.”
…
“The oversight committee, which has expressed concerns about the delay in the resolution of cases referred to the independent process, determined that much of the delay is the result of efforts by the Complex Case Unit to ‘re-investigate’ cases that the enforcement staff thoroughly investigated,” an NCAA release said. “Accepting the enforcement staff’s results will speed the process significantly without compromising the goals of the Independent Accountability Resolution Process, committee members think.”
LikeLike
Do the B1G bylaws allow for member schools to vote another member school(s) out of the conference? If so, can someone provide a link to the details if available. If the B1G decided to trim low performers to make room for more attractive additions from P12 or ACC (after GoR expires) is that even possible?
LikeLike
Bob,
I’m pretty sure the B10 guards those bylaws like state secrets. That said, there has to be a way to vote out a member. It most likely requires “cause” and a unanimous vote, with allowable causes (like losing accreditation, loss of institutional control over athletics, or violating B10/NCAA rules badly) described. I highly doubt it is possible to force someone out over athletics money, but UM was voted out in the 1900s for not promising to follow the rules.
Click to access 106748007.pdf
Click to access Big_Ten_2016_17_Handbook.pdf
B10 handbook. Membership is discussed on p. 28. But the handbook is subject to the articles of incorporation and the bylaws,
LikeLike
If the B1G decided to trim low performers to make room for more attractive additions from P12 or ACC (after GoR expires) is that even possible?
Conferences don’t generally cut schools for being bad at sports. The only modern example I can think of is when the Big East booted Temple.
The football powerhouses want some dead wood to play against. As good as they are, Ohio State wouldn’t win 11–12 games a year if they didn’t have a few easy ones on their schedule.
LikeLike
Well there’s the MWC/WAC split. The Big 8/SWC semi-merger.
Less modern are the Pac 5 leaving behind Idaho, the Oregon schools and WSU, the ACC leaving behind the Southern, the SEC leaving behind the Southern (mainly ACC schools) and the Big 6 (later 8) leaving behind the MVC.
Indirectly there is the migration of most of CUSA to AAC and most of the Sun Belt to CUSA.
Pretty much every conference other than the midwesterneres-Big 10 and MAC, are formed from kicking out or leaving lower performers.
Even some of the basketball conferences were formed that way. The Summit is mostly a Division I version of the Division II North Central Conference.
LikeLike
“ Less modern are the Pac 5 leaving behind Idaho, the Oregon schools and WSU,”
Everyone gets this backwards.
It was the supposedly left out that dissolved the 10 team conference over cheating i.e. pay for play at 3 schools, I believe USC, WA, and UCal. Stanford joined in the vote but stayed to form a group of 5. The Oregon’s and WSU were all invited back in less than 8 years. Montana immediately was involved in formation of new conf. and Idaho was only one available that wasn’t invited to the new conference that wasn’t officially called the Pac 8 until a couple years later.
Also, the BE didn’t so much boot Temple as Temple chose to not honor the terms of their conditional membership. They made the choice.
LikeLike
Apologies (maybe) to USC, my old brain now recalls UCLA as one of the offenders. UW definitely, with UCLA and I believe another.
That was a time when being independent was not necessarily the problem like today.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-12_Conference#History
AAWU (Big Five and Big Six)
Following “pay-for-play” scandals at California, USC, UCLA, and Washington, the PCC disbanded in June 1959. Ten months earlier in August 1958, these four schools agreed to form a new conference that would take effect the following summer.[59][60] When the four schools and Stanford began discussions for a new conference in 1959, retired Admiral Thomas J. Hamilton interceded and suggested the schools consider creating a national “power conference” (Hamilton had been a key player, head coach, and athletic director at Navy, and was the current athletic director at Pittsburgh). Nicknamed the “Airplane Conference,”[61][62][63] the five former PCC schools would have played with other major academically-oriented schools, including Army, Navy, Air Force, Notre Dame, Pitt, Penn State, and Syracuse.[61][64] The effort fell through when a Pentagon official vetoed the idea and the service academies backed out.[65]
On July 1, 1959, the new Athletic Association of Western Universities was launched, with California, UCLA, USC, and Washington as the four charter members.[66] Stanford joined during the first month.[60][67] Hamilton left Pittsburgh to become the first commissioner of the AAWU,[66][68] and remained for twelve years.[69] The conference also was popularly known as the Big Five from 1960 to 1962.[70] When Washington State joined in 1962,[71] the conference became informally known as the Big Six.[70][72] The new league inherited the PCC’s berth in the Rose Bowl; since 1947, the PCC champion had received an automatic bid to the bowl.
Pacific-8
Oregon and Oregon State joined in the summer of 1964.[73][74][75] With their addition, the conference was known unofficially as the Pacific Athletic Conference,[76][77][78][79][80] and then the Pacific-8 (as there already was a major conference called the Big Eight). In 1968, the AAWU formally renamed itself the Pacific-8 Conference, or Pac-8 for short. The Pac-8 did not allow a second bowl team from the conference until the 1975 season;[81] in basketball, participation in the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) was not allowed until 1973.[82]
Idaho was never invited to join the AAWU;[75] the Vandals were independent for four years until the formation of the Big Sky Conference in 1963, and were independent in football until 1965.
Likewise, UM was kicked out of the B10 for a while.
LikeLike
Brian,
I disagree with the Pac characterization as a kick out. The cheating was a known problem for a fair number of years and the dissolution of the conference was an inevitability. The pre planning for the aftermath was reactive rather than instigating. No school was booted from an existing conference in this case,
I don’t think the dissolving and then reforming the same group minus one or two has ever occurred in order to exclude those schools. That is my point. Maybe it did once a long time ago, perhaps that’s why it takes a unanimous vote to dissolve?
Having been born in Michigan I’m disappointed in myself for not recalling the UM exclusion.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I disagree with the Pac characterization as a kick out.”
Fair enough. I just provided the wiki-history of it, I didn’t make the claim.
“I don’t think the dissolving and then reforming the same group minus one or two has ever occurred in order to exclude those schools. That is my point.”
Well Idaho did kind of get the short end of that, but I agree they didn’t dissolve just to get rid of Idaho.
“Maybe it did once a long time ago, perhaps that’s why it takes a unanimous vote to dissolve?”
There have been some historical splits like the MVIAA (Big 8 precursor) where 6 of the 7 state schools split off, leaving OkSU plus the private schools. You could argue the SWC dissolved to drop 4 schools on the way to forming the B12.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/05/23/dominant-division-iii-football-school-kicked-out-conference-being-too-good/
If you go to D-III, The U. of St. Thomas was kicked out of their conference (MIAC) for winning too much.
University representatives for an NCAA Division III athletics conference in Minnesota voted to oust the league’s most successful school — one of its charter members — over “athletic competitive parity.”
The University of St. Thomas, located in St. Paul, Minn., helped found the Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference in 1920 and has emerged in recent seasons as the 13-school league’s dominant force in multiple sports. The MIAC’s presidents’ council voted to “involuntarily remove” St. Thomas after the 2021 spring season, while noting the school has not violated any conference or NCAA rules and leaves in good standing.
The conference did not reveal which institutions voted to force out St. Thomas.
“I think it’s a sad day for St. Thomas. It’s a difficult day for us,” the school’s athletic director, Phil Esten, said in a phone interview. “And it’s a sad day for the MIAC.”
Conference university presidents conducted the campaign to banish St. Thomas in secret, according to the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, after the Tommies defeated St. Olaf College in football, 97-0, in 2017. Since Coach Glenn Caruso took over the St. Thomas football program in 2008, the team has won six conference titles and played in two national championship games.
…
By the time Esten replaced Steve Fritz, who had been at the school for 52 years, as athletic director in January, conference presidents already were well on their way to gathering the nine votes necessary to cast out St. Thomas.
…
“St. Thomas expended tremendous effort to remain in the MIAC and stabilize the conference,” Sullivan wrote in a letter to the campus. “However, the presidents came to a consensus that the conference itself would cease to exist in its current form if St. Thomas remained.”
St. Thomas’s undergraduate enrollment of around 6,200 students is close to double that of every other MIAC member, and the universities probably will push to establish an enrollment cap, the Star Tribune reported.
So apparently they needed a 75% vote to kick them out (9 out of 12 non-interested schools). I will venture to say that the B10 won’t kick out anyone for winning too much or being too big compared to everyone else.
“Having been born in Michigan I’m disappointed in myself for not recalling the UM exclusion.”
Well, it was over 100 years ago.
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct about Temple and the Big East. There was no institutional support for the football program. In 1995, average home attendance was slightly more than 4,000 per game (not a typo). Temple committed to more support and improvements to the football stadium, which had a capacity of about 30,000.
Temple did nothing about those commitments and based on that was asked to leave. It was not due to the lousy won lost record.
LikeLike
The Big East Conference had documented targets for average football attendance, 15,000. Temple fell well short of that.
LikeLike
While Purdue, Illinois and some others are performing well below their historical level in football, they are competitive in other sports. And bear in mind the B1G is not a football conference it is an athletic conference. Moreover, OSU needsPurdue et al more than they need OSU. OSU must prove it is a King, and that requires Princesses to beat up. In a conference of pure Kings, everyone would be 6 and 6.
There will not be any relegation of teams in the B1G or the PAC12 or the ACC or the SEC.
LikeLike
That’s the main thing that people don’t get.
The king programs don’t want to set up a mini-NFL where they all play each other and only Alabama and maybe 1 of Ohio State/Oklahoma/Florida/Georgia lose less than 2 games a year.
Nobody wants that. Programs like Michigan/Penn State/Tennessee/etc. should never want that.
Decades of 6-6 or 7-5 teams will tarnish the national brand of a program. You aren’t a “king” going 7-5 most years in a mini-NFL.
You’re basically sacrificing your name for the league brand at that point. But good luck stuffing 90-100k people into a stadium after decades of losing 4-5 games a year. Good luck getting people to care nationally about those programs. Good luck getting boosters to dump tons of money on your program.
Every conference setup needs a lot of “filler” programs that bring regions/territory/footprint while being able to only beat the king programs once every ten or twenty years.
LikeLike
The NFL would disagree, and I think I do also. Watching a top tier P5 team play Miami of Ohio doesn’t interest me in the slightest. But the likes of that are foisted on us every year three times a year or so per power team. ESPN thinks that amounts to leaving money on the table, and it’s hard to disagree.
It’s the whole point of expanding the playoffs, to create more interesting, meaningful games. But they are limited by numbers of games and the calendar; so the alternative is trim the fat during the season, thus contraction of teams. That’s where I think we are headed anyway.
LikeLike
Peter,
Professional football is different from college football. Football is the sole reason for being for the NFL, and all decisions can be focused on maximizing TV revenue which dwarfs ticket sales and concessions. Team allegiance is largely based on location and fans are generally happy with making the playoffs most of the time.
Colleges are much bigger than their athletics program. Allegiance for many is based on having attended the school or knowing people who did. Athletics serve as an alumni relations tool used to keep[ donors happy and help stimulate further giving to the school. Nobody donates money to their favorite NFL team, but athletic donations can be a huge part of the budget. The largest colleges seat 50% more fans than most NFL teams and ticket sales can match or exceed TV revenue. Weak OOC games allow schools to host more home games, bringing in millions in revenue to the school and the city. Many businesses survive based almost entirely on game weekends.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
OSU in 2019:
Rights/licensing = $93.9M (B10 payout ~ $54M)
Ticket sales = $59.8M
Donations = $29.7M
Other = $27.0M
Total = $210.5M
Rights/Licensing: Includes revenue for athletics from radio and television broadcasts, Internet and e-commerce rights received from institution-negotiated contracts, the NCAA and conference revenue-sharing arrangements; and revenue from corporate sponsorships, licensing, sales of advertisements, trademarks and royalties. Includes the value of in-kind products and services provided as part of a corporate sponsorship (e.g., equipment, apparel, soft drinks, water and isotonic products). Also includes revenue from food, concessions and parking.
NFL fans accept 8-8. CFB fans of the top schools accept 9-3. Colleges need to sell more tickets and keep donors very happy. Winning a lot helps with that. Over time fans would adjust, but the old and rich fans are used to 10+ wins every year and will not take kindly to going 6-6. Colleges would take a huge hit for decades.
In addition, the pageantry and nostalgia are big parts of CFB. If you turn CFB into NFL-lite, you lose that connection. Alumni remember playing a certain set of teams and that’s who they want to see. If you lose that connection, then this just becomes a worse version of NFL football. Why pay so much and devote so much effort to CFB when the NFL is better?
LikeLike
Oh, and that’s not the point of expanding the CFP. The main point of that is money. The next 3 reasons are money, money, and money. About 5th on that list is increased access for schools beyond AL, Clemson, OSU and OU.
LikeLike
I would say your #5 is first on the list for a lot of schools. Money is #2, 3, 4 and 5.
LikeLike
bullet,
Most schools know they’ll probably never get in. But an extra millions and millions per year every year is vital. As long as there is some reasonable path to access, that’s fine with them.
LikeLike
Oh, and that’s not the point of expanding the CFP. The main point of that is money.
I agree, as I think everybody does. But the way you do that is to schedule more interesting, meaningful games.
LikeLike
Peter,
More playoff games = more money directly, but it also means more people care about more regular season games because they impact somebody’s shot at the CFP. Even those games against teams that have no shot.
And some fans do like to watch mismatches and see their team win big.
LikeLike
Watching a top tier P5 team play Miami of Ohio doesn’t interest me in the slightest. But the likes of that are foisted on us every year three times a year or so per power team. ESPN thinks that amounts to leaving money on the table, and it’s hard to disagree.
SEC teams today play eight conference games, one P5 OOC opponent, and three cupcakes. There’s been no discussion of going to zero cupcakes. At most, they’d eliminate one of the three. (That assumes they eliminate one cupcake game.)
And the SEC schedules a lot worse than Miami of Ohio. They schedule FCS cupcakes that make Miami look like Oklahoma.
There has also been no discussion of expelling the SEC’s perennial football losers like Vandy and Kentucky.
LikeLike
Miami has more top 10 finishes (2) than a number of P5 schools. Once in the 70s and once around 2003 with Ben Rothleisberger. Without looking it up, I’m guessing half the Big 10 would have to go back earlier than the 70s to get to 2 top 10 finishes. Rutgers and Indiana may never have had two. In the SEC, I’m guessing 3 to 5. would have to go further back.
LikeLike
If ANY conference is thinking about casting off its perennially bad football teams, they are keeping the secret extremely well.
In contrast, the fact that Texas and Oklahoma were open to other conferences has been known for years. That was no secret at all.
LikeLike
Kings can’t go 7-5 or 6-6 for long and still be “kings”. However, it’s hard to think every school in the B1G, P12, ACC, etc. should feel safe moving forward. If the leadership in the B1G and P12 determined the best thing long term was a merger, an 18 or 20 team league may be much more valuable (per school) than one with all 26. At that point reforming with the most valuable teams makes more sense long term than a few jumping ship to the other league. No way everyone survives the musical chairs.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2021/08/04/us-senator-roger-marshall-doj-investigate-espn-big-12
A senator from KS has asked the DOJ to investigate ESPN and their role in UT and OU moving to the SEC.
U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R., Kan.) wrote a letter on Tuesday to United States Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate ESPN for its role in Texas and Oklahoma’s move to the SEC.
“I write today to ask the DOJ investigate ESPN’s role in the potential destruction of the Big 12 conference and if any anti-competitive or illegal behavior occurred relating to manipulating the conference change or ESPN’s contractual television rights,” the letter read.
LikeLike
Hey Brian, for the past couple of weeks we’ve been kicking around quite a few conference realignment scenarios here on FTT’s forum. How about this one:
Federal judge blocks UT and OU move to SEC due to ESPN antitrust action. UT and OU then join Big Ten without any ESPN or Fox interference. Big XII collapses anyway. B1G lives happily ever after.
LikeLike
What fun! The Supremes decide on college conference realignment.What would they do? With six Catholics on the Court, would Notre Dame be able to set things up the way they want? ACC GoR dead?
If the courts do get involved, which is possible, they stick their fingers into all pies, I think the first outcome is everything is frozen in place. UT and OU stay in the B12 until at least the ending of the GoR.
With Senators now actively involved, a federally imposed conference organization is possible. When schools like KU and KSU have their state’s senate delegation and house delegation involved, school presidents and athletic directors and conference commissioners take a back seat.
Good grief! College sports ruled by some department in Dept. of Education.
LikeLike
This is political posturing, nothing more. Senator Marshall needs to look like he’s fighting for KU and KSU.
LikeLike
The lawyers need to weigh in, but I don’t think the judge could block the move by UT and OU for ESPN breaking the law. Perhaps they could forbid ESPN from paying them (and the SEC) more for moving to the SEC, or from paying the B12 less for losing UT and OU, until the deal ends. Would they reconsider if they can’t make more money until 2025? I doubt it, but maybe.
LikeLike
And remember, so far UT and OU have claimed they aren’t leaving until the GoR ends. They are free agents at that point. Maybe the B12 could attempt to claim tortious interference, but UT and OU only agreed to leave after the contract ends. That sounds fair.
I do believe a court could potentially block an early move.
LikeLike
an·ti·trust
/ˌan(t)ēˈtrəst,ˌanˌtīˈtrəst/
adjective
relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.
If a federal court rules that ESPN has tried to form a TV/cable monopoly, UT and OU could be forever barred from joining an ESPN sponsored conference. That would allow UT and OU to look around and the SEC may need to settle on sloppy seconds, e.g. A&M and Texas Tech (actually longtime rivals) and Mizzou and Kansas (also lingtime rivals).
LikeLike
To me it seems like that would impact ESPN showing the SEC, not UT and OU moving there. The SEC isn’t the monopoly. Fox could pick up the SEC deal, or part of it..
LikeLike
Right, the SEC isn’t the monopoly. ESPN would be the monopoly. They own the SEC Network and the (loser) Longhorn Network. They could profitably consolidate both of them and cut their loses while essentially eliminating any serious competition from Big XII TV/cable. That’s a monopoly.
LikeLike
Colin – I have never practiced in the area of anti-trust, but from what I remember in law school, what you just described is not a monopoly. ESPN has other competitors on cable TV. On their best day, ESPN may have 25-30 million viewers. That’s less than ten percent of the population. Other networks are free to bid on college football. FOX, NBC, CBS, FSN & CBSSN all carry college football games. The SEC, after UT & OU join, will comprise less than one quarter of the P5 and less than fifteen percent of the FBS.
Just because a conference chooses to sell all of its product (home games) to one network doesn’t make it a monopoly. By your logic, the NBC deal with Notre Dame for its home games and new NHL deal with ESPN would also violate anti-trust.
LikeLike
My point is, don’t punish the schools by blocking the move. Punish ESPN by blocking some of their TV deals. But Fox has so much coverage I don’t see how this would be a violation.
LikeLike
Brian – if the SEC asked ESPN how much OU & UT would add to the value of the SEC package after the B12 package expires in 2025, how is that a problem? UT & OU have no contractual arrangement with the other members of the B12 after that time. Neither will ESPN (or FOX for that matter). Both networks already stated they weren’t interested in extending the current deal or re-working it at this time.
Without having read any of these contracts, I would think the only problem would be if ESPN violated any of the terms of their contract with the B12 by discussing those future possibilities. That’s not a matter for the Justice Department or a Senate hearing, but most likely a state district court judge in Bristol CT.
LikeLike
Alan,
As I said, I don’t see this as an issue for the SEC or UT/OU. Only ESPN could possibly get in trouble, and I doubt that they will. The law allows all sorts of unethical behavior, and that’s with proof that it happened. He said-he said is meaningless.
If ESPN not only told UT/OU or the SEC that they would get a big bump (or have exit fees covered, etc.) from them leaving early to join the SEC but also encouraged one or both sides to make it happen, then they could maybe be in trouble. Any discussion about 2025 on is fair game.
LikeLike
If a federal court rules that ESPN has tried to form a TV/cable monopoly, UT and OU could be forever barred from joining an ESPN sponsored conference.
I suggest you read some antitrust law. ESPN has nowhere near a monopoly on college football broadcasts. The addition of OU and UT does not create one.
Besides that, what is an “ESPN sponsored conference”? ESPN doesn’t sponsor conferences. It buys TV rights. Almost every conference has a portion of their rights with ESPN.
Even if ESPN were found liable, the remedy would not be to prohibit UT and OU from joining a particular conference. No, if ESPN is a monopolist, the remedy would be to force ESPN to divest some of its rights.
Heck, that could happen naturally. Next time the SEC’s rights are on the market, they might sell a piece to Fox or some other network, as the Big Ten did.
LikeLike
Alan,
Any thoughts on the reported part of B12 contract barring contacting other conferences regarding membership prior to end of GOR/contract?
LikeLike
CC – I haven’t seen it.
LikeLike
The non-contact language is in the conference agreement, not the separate grant of rights. TX and OK decided not to wait that one out since it runs for 99 years. I am not sure of the start year, but it has 70+ more years to run.
LikeLike
Last time around didn’t every B12 member reach out to other conferences? I’m not sure they want to go down that road. Besides, how could leadership do their jobs if they aren’t aware of their options? How could the conference properly negotiate with ESPN and Fox if the members don’t know their own worth?
LikeLike
Any thoughts on the reported part of B12 contract barring contacting other conferences regarding membership prior to end of GOR/contract?
I’d love to see the actual wording of that. Who in their right mind signs a deal that says they cannot even talk to anybody for 99 years? Oklahoma alone has been in four conferences over the last 99, and that doesn’t count the SEC.
LikeLike
@Marc – section 3.
Click to access bylaws.pdf
LikeLike
Precisely my point about Congressional involvement if there were suddenly a 32 team super league with at least 15 states getting burned. Here there is on US Senator from one state and he can create havoc.
I do not expect that this investigation will go anywhere, but add another 15 or 20 screaming Senators and see what happens. Clearly this is interstate commerce, so it is subject to Congressional jurisdiction.
On a prior thread, someone listed a 40 team super league, which is a lot less problematical than a 32 team league.
I view Notre Dame as a national team and based on that, the following states with P5 teams lose them their teams: NJ, NY, MD, IN, MN, IL, CO and UT. So five states with B1G teams alone would have no major football left among the 40 teams.
In addition, the following states would lose at least on major program: CA (Cal and Stanford gone), Arizona (no U of AZ), Kansas (no U of KS), Oregon and Washington (no Or State or Wash State), North Carolina (no UNC, Duke, or Wake), Georgia (no Ga Tech), TN (no Vandy) and PA (no Pitt).
Nice coalition of red and blue states. Bipartisan aggravation.
Again this is 40 team proposal and 32 would be much worse. If one Senator from Kansas may cause chaos, what problems would be caused by a coalition of the 8 states totally losing big time football, and some of the 9 states losing at least one school?
While Senators from AL, MS, TX, FL and some others would not think that their states are harmed, would they really go to the mat over this? People who lose something are much more motivated than those who do not.
Frank the Tank all by himself would have the IL delegation up in arms over the loss of U of IL and Northwestern.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Precisely my point about Congressional involvement if there were suddenly a 32 team super league with at least 15 states getting burned. Here there is on US Senator from one state and he can create havoc.”
No, he can’t. He can grab some headlines for a quick bump in the polls back home. The US government is all but impotent unless one party has a large majority in both houses and the presidency. They can’t get anything done. It is a non-threat.
“I view Notre Dame as a national team”
But they aren’t. And they’re private, so not as important to congress.
“and based on that, the following states with P5 teams lose them their teams: NJ, NY, MD, IN, MN, IL, CO and UT. So five states with B1G teams alone would have no major football left among the 40 teams.”
Problems with this:
1. You’re assuming who would be included and who wouldn’t.
2. How come ND doesn’t count as being from IN? Last I checked, that’s where South Bend is. And ND probably has more football fans in IN than IU or PU.
3. You’re assuming that not being in the superleague is like falling off the face of the Earth, and there’s no evidence for that. Is the B12 no longer “major” football without their kings? Are the AAC and MWC not “major” despite playing in the NY6 games and almost making the playoff?
4. Making the most money isn’t a right. If B10 or SEC teams fell back to where the ACC is financially, is that no longer major football?
“In addition, the following states would lose at least on major program: CA (Cal and Stanford gone), Arizona (no U of AZ), Kansas (no U of KS), Oregon and Washington (no Or State or Wash State), North Carolina (no UNC, Duke, or Wake), Georgia (no Ga Tech), TN (no Vandy) and PA (no Pitt).”
And how many people in those states really care? If these teams had lots of fans, they’d be in the top group.
LikeLike
Yes, one Senator can cause havoc for a while. It is going nowhere, but it is still an annoyance.
With Indiana and Purdue out, you seem to feel that all will be well in Indiana with both Notre Dame being in. Really? Are most fans and alums in Indiana from Notre Dame?
I am assuming that not being in the Super League relegates those teams to a football payout of less than $20 and probably much less than $10 million. UConn left the AAC since the basketball payout from the Big East was greater than the AAC payments. The AAC will pay about $8 million per year to their teams under their new upcoming contract. I would imagine that the new B1G contract will be close to $70 million.
A loss of tens of millions of dollars per year is a big deal to any athletic department. Illinois, Indiana, etc, will drop in revenue by $60 million year. The states are not going to replace that money, so the athletic dept shrinks dramatically.
By the way, that is where antitrust considerations are very real. Now there are five major conferences which compete with each other. If a group of them decided they would exclude one third or more of their current total membership so that they form a single group to control the vast majority of college football revenues, sounds like an anti-trust violation to me.
The original understanding of antitrust was predicated largely on size. Standard Oil was not broken up for any reason other than its dominant position, which inherently allowed it some price control. In recent years, harm to the consumer has become the new basis for enforcement, so notwithstanding the dominance of Google, for example, no serious attempts have been made to “break up Google”.
Now the administration has nominated Jonathan Kantor as Antitrust Chief at Dept of Justice. Kantor is all in on breaking up Google just because its dominance. I think that the tide is moving back toward the legal position that sheer size in an industry is a major problem. (While absolutely no one cares (and I have never done an antitrust work), I agree with the old position now coming back that sheer size is a problem)
Personally I believe that a 32 or 40 team league would qualify as an antitrust issue under either standard.
Making money is not a right. If the payout to the B1G dropped to $30 million rather than $60 million due to streaming, cord cutting, whatever, so be it. If that is the highest bid, that is it. This is far beyond the question of making money. It is an issue of academic as well as sports standing.
If the B1G collapsed because OSU, UMich, Wisky and some other team joined the PAC, so be it. That is how it goes. This would be very different.
Do you the think that the academics at the Universities of Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as Purdue and Northwestern would view this only in terms of a loss of money? Being part of the B1G has been one of the basic cores of each of those schools for many decades. Now the B1G would be destroyed, not by competitive pressure from the SEC or PAC, but so that a few schools could make extra money. This is not so much a financial argument as an expression of doubt that OSU, UM, etc. would be interested breaking from the B1G after about 100 years.
By the way, how much money are we talking about. The new NFL TV contracts seem to average $321,000,000 per team per year. Average NFL viewership is in excess of 15,000,000 per game. Only a handful of the biggest college games per year come even close to that number of viewers. Most games are a small fraction of that, though some big in season games exceed 10 million.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
So how much will the teams in the Super League get. Obviously, if it is 32 teams, they are likely to get a lot more per team than 40 teams would. Is it even feasible that teams will get $150,000,000 per year instead of say $70,000,000 million per B1G team. That would be less than a 1% increase in the budget of UMichigan. The Ohio State budget is $7.5 billion, so this would be a 1% increase.
Are you honestly suggesting that people in North Carolina would not care if UNC, Duke and Wake were sent to the minor leagues? Obviously someone in Kansas care about the Big12, though that lot likely to go anywhere. I could be wrong, but I am guessing that Pitt alumni might make noise in PA.
As far as states that left with no team, check with Frank the Tank on the reaction in Illinois.
In NJ I know for a fact that tens of millions of have been committed to improved facilities to be competitive in the B1G.
LikeLike
All of this is contingent on the kings and princes forming a 32 to 40-team super-league, something there is no evidence whatsoever that they have considered. College sports are notoriously slow to change. Almost anything that happens is first talked about for years and years. There are near-zero odds that all the parties are entertaining this, and keeping it so secret that there are no leaks at all.
Personally I believe that a 32 or 40 team league would qualify as an antitrust issue under either standard.
How is this any different from when the former Division I split in two, with half the teams relegated to what’s now called “FCS”? It passed anti-trust muster then, and the law hasn’t changed.
And how is this any different from the Power Five/Gang-of-Five split that exists today? This too has passed anti-trust muster, and in fact has never been seriously challenged, as far as I know.
All you are saying is that the Power Five would be halved once again, when it has already halved twice before without an issue.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Yes, one Senator can cause havoc for a while. It is going nowhere, but it is still an annoyance.”
It’s not even that. He wrote a letter. DOJ has more important things to do.
“With Indiana and Purdue out, you seem to feel that all will be well in Indiana with both Notre Dame being in. Really? Are most fans and alums in Indiana from Notre Dame?”
IN is famous for “reversible jacket” fans who change allegiance after football season. Come hoops time they are IU or PU fans, but in CFB they are ND fans.
“I am assuming that not being in the Super League relegates those teams to a football payout of less than $20 and probably much less than $10 million.”
You assuming that doesn’t make it true. All these P5 teams would be more valuable than the next tier (AAC/MWC), plus they would provide important inventory. A 32-team league can’t fill all the TV windows Fox and ESPN need filled. And you are assuming no pass through of money from the top, but every superleague proposal I have seen indicates that would have to be part of the equation.
“A loss of tens of millions of dollars per year is a big deal to any athletic department. Illinois, Indiana, etc, will drop in revenue by $60 million year. The states are not going to replace that money, so the athletic dept shrinks dramatically.”
They can also spend less on the same sports by not trying to keep up with the Joneses.
“By the way, that is where antitrust considerations are very real. Now there are five major conferences which compete with each other. If a group of them decided they would exclude one third or more of their current total membership so that they form a single group to control the vast majority of college football revenues, sounds like an anti-trust violation to me.”
Sounds like P5 vs G5, I-A vs I-AA, D-I vs D-II/III, … to me. Nobody would be preventing a second superleague from forming. And they don’t control the finances, they sell their media rights. Media companies tell them what they’re worth.
“The original understanding of antitrust was predicated largely on size. Standard Oil was not broken up for any reason other than its dominant position, which inherently allowed it some price control. In recent years, harm to the consumer has become the new basis for enforcement, so notwithstanding the dominance of Google, for example, no serious attempts have been made to “break up Google”.”
And the harm of a superleague to fans is what? They’re the ones asking for it.
But i have said before, they would have to take the right steps to set it up legally. The major pro sports leagues have anti-trust exemptions that let them do some things this league wouldn’t be able to do.
“Personally I believe that a 32 or 40 team league would qualify as an antitrust issue under either standard.”
32 or 40 is nowhere near a majority of I-A, let alone CFB, and it’s 32 or 40 separate entities.
“If the B1G collapsed because OSU, UMich, Wisky and some other team joined the PAC, so be it. That is how it goes. This would be very different.”
Why? It’s schools leaving a conference to form a new one in order to make more money. It’s exactly what you just described. It’s the formation of the B12 from the remnants of the SWC and the Big 8.
“Do you the think that the academics at the Universities of Indiana, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as Purdue and Northwestern would view this only in terms of a loss of money?”
Yes, because that’s how they view things. They’d try to justify spending less on athletics so the focus can go back to academics.
“This is not so much a financial argument as an expression of doubt that OSU, UM, etc. would be interested breaking from the B1G after about 100 years.”
Which is a completely different argument, and again ignores that most superleague proposals are for football only.
And try to remember that I don’t favor these concepts, I just don’t buy the legal arguments against them or believe that they are impossible.
“By the way, how much money are we talking about.”
Nobody knows, which is why you making wild assumptions about those left out is so baseless. I’d assume it would need to be at least $80M just for football in order to get teams to join. It could take even more. Could it draw $100M or more? Possibly.
“So how much will the teams in the Super League get. Obviously, if it is 32 teams, they are likely to get a lot more per team than 40 teams would. Is it even feasible that teams will get $150,000,000 per year instead of say $70,000,000 million per B1G team. That would be less than a 1% increase in the budget of UMichigan. The Ohio State budget is $7.5 billion, so this would be a 1% increase.”
Athletic budgets are mostly separate from the academic budget at these schools. This would be money to better support the other sports and then donate more back to the school. All money is good to universities right now.
“Are you honestly suggesting that people in North Carolina would not care if UNC, Duke and Wake were sent to the minor leagues?”
In football? Yes. Most years you can walk up at Duke and buy tickets and sit almost anywhere you want for many games.
“Obviously someone in Kansas care about the Big12, though that lot likely to go anywhere.”
No, they care about KU hoops. They’d sell their football team if it preserved hoops.
“As far as states that left with no team, check with Frank the Tank on the reaction in Illinois.
In NJ I know for a fact that tens of millions of have been committed to improved facilities to be competitive in the B1G.”
Let’s be honest. IL football hasn’t been top tier for a long time and nobody in IL has been in an uproar about it. Nobody seemed to complain when RU self-imposed being bottom tier in sports.
LikeLike
In a perfect world, the Big Ten would pick up Texas, Oklahoma, Toronto and Colorado. We’d have a conference spread from the Gulf of Mexico to Hudson Bay to the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains. The SEC would then be stuck with the most racist elements of the Confederacy for the woke to detest in internet forums.
Now, that probably won’t happen. But we need to focus upon UT and OU going into the valley of the shadow of legal death, a tempest of B12 lawyer tantrums and lawsuits that will forever entangle any symbiotic melding of UT/OU with the SEC. The antichrist is, of course, ESPN.
LikeLike
Let’s not go too far buddy lol.
It’s just college sports.
FWIW, I do understand the move for UT and OU; they’re cultural fits in the SEC, especially (and most importantly) among their big donors/fanbases.
It’s hard to really remove that aspect from the equation.
For example, for USC fans/alums/donors; a move with 5-7 other Pac-12 schools to the Big Ten would be a natural move.
The same thing is true for Texas to the SEC. They just aren’t as interested in the Big Ten. There’s a lot more interaction with other SEC fans down there, and A&M/LSU/Arkansas are all neighbors.
LikeLike
I really wish we had some USC fans around here. Really want to know what they think/about the Pac-12/Big Ten and realignment generally.
Reality is just that the Pac-12 brand will never be a national brand with pull on sports fans outside of the West.
If they want to get full value (especially on third tier rights) the only way to achieve that is to join the Big Ten with whoever they want to come.
I know some of the writers out there think it’s unlikely because of travel considerations and that they wouldn’t want to blow up the Pac-12… but if USC is coming with 6-7 friends and creating a Pacific division of 7-8 teams in most/all sports, I just don’t see the downside here for them.
They basically get a mostly pacific schedule in most sports and then would have a couple crossover games in the east/central timezones.
And even with a bump in money, I don’t see the Pac-12 coming anywhere close to the Big Ten/SEC unless they solve the Pac-12 Networks problem.
In the future, eyeballs will matter more than anything, and the best shot at them getting full value is to aggregate their eyeballs with those of an eastern conference.
LikeLike
Here are some snapshots:
https://trojandailyblog.com/its-time-for-usc-football-to-finally-play-hard-ball-with-the-pac-12/
https://wearesc.com/musings-from-arledge-a-pac-12-big-12-merger/
I have no idea how representative these opinions are, but some have comments sections.
LikeLike
Brian, I believe those articles carry the same weight as the comments of you, Marc, z33k and myself here on FTT’s forum.
LikeLike
He asked what their fans think, not what USC thinks. Do you have a better source?
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve checked out a lot of what USC fans were saying on some of their forums like 247/WeareSC.
Most of the major reporters out West like Wilner think that USC’s leadership doesn’t want to blow up the Pac-12, but if the question is phrased (would you join the Big Ten with 6 or 7 other schools), I think the answer may be different.
Too many people are just assuming it’d be just USC coming to the Big Ten alone or in a +1 and I don’t see any scenario like that.
I think USC would come to the Big Ten with a minimum of 5 other schools probably, but maybe even 6 or 7.
USC + 3 Cali schools + Washington/Oregon to get the Big Ten to 20. That’s the absolute minimum that makes sense for the Big Ten.
USC + 3 Cali schools + Washington/Oregon + 1 of Colorado/Arizona to get the Big Ten to 21 (for 3 divisions of 7).
USC + 3 Cali schools +Washington/Oregon/Colorado/Arizona to get the Big Ten to 22 (making a Pacific division of 8).
I think 8 makes the most sense; keep most of the rivalries there; get all the footprint value that you can with Colorado/Arizona added, and could make a division of 8 given that we’re likely to aim for 2 more ACC schools later anyways.
LikeLike
Most of the major reporters out West like Wilner think that USC’s leadership doesn’t want to blow up the Pac-12…
Wilner and the others don’t “think” that. They get it from well placed sources whom they have spent years cultivating.
He could be wrong, but at least he is reporting. He is not just spitballing on a message board.
LikeLike
Don’t want to is different from wouldn’t under any circumstances. Of course they don’t want to, and they won’t for a small amount of money. But if that difference is $50M per year? $100M? At some point they would consider a godfather offer. As you point out, the number of other P12 schools coming with them is part of the calculation. Too few and they won’t leave, too many and it won’t make sense financially.
LikeLike
Reality is just that even if we’re just spitballing here, the major decision makers know the numbers inside and out and what’s working and what’s not.
The gaps between conferences and the futures of schools has never been wider, and will only grow wider; they can all see that.
And they can all see the changes in major media markets.
If Texas has to make a move to the SEC to secure its future, then all bets are off and everyone else has to re-evaluate their future. Who knows whether anything happens with the Pac-12 over the next 5 years, but I doubt fear of leaving others behind will play too big of a role.
LikeLike
If Texas has to make a move to the SEC to secure its future, then all bets are off…
I don’t think Texas had to move. Texas never had a sustained commitment to the Big 12. The league is only a quarter-century old. The Longhorns do not have a long history with most of those teams.
A decade ago, they were willing to move to the Big Ten or Pac-12 for the right offer. It didn’t happen because those two conferences didn’t meet UT’s needs, but they (Texas) had already shown that for the right opportunity, they would be gone.
Weighing payouts and accepting the highest one does not mean the others are unsustainable, only that one is better than the others.
LikeLike
But my point is what if the others aren’t sustainable. It’s not going to happen tomorrow or the next couple years, but in like 15-20 years, paytv will have way lower subscribership than now. That number may settle at say 40 million or 45 million households, but those are barely more than half of what the current number is.
BTN/SECN/Pac-12N/ACCN won’t have anywhere near the subscriber numbers from paytv that they have now.
At that point, you have to justify your value with actual eyeballs on content to get people to watch on-demand/streaming.
The SEC has that for sure; the Big Ten has enough to at least keep pace behind the 16 team SEC. Not sure the rest have it as secure.
I think Texas looked 15-20 years into the future and was like “who’s watching our conference mates in 20 years, do those football games get eyeballs?” “What’s the best grouping for us that makes sense?”, and joining the SEC with its nationalized brand and grouping of schools like Florida/Georgia/Alabama/Tennessee/A&M/LSU that carry nationally and across large markets and excite people locally there.
And USC is going to likely look at the future and whether they can make this work in the Pac-12 long-term. If they decide that they can’t, then we’ll see what happens.
As are FSU/Clemson and the rest of the ACC around 2031-2032.
LikeLike
z33k,
Nobody knows what the TV model will be in the future. Will conference networks get thrown into bundles for streaming? Will they become PPV? Will they disappear?
The current B10 tier 1 deal ends in 2023. The BTN deal ends in 2032, making me think the B10 may want the next tier 1 deal to end in 2032 as well. We’ll learn a lot about what the B10 thinks is the future of TV in about a decade.
LikeLike
Yeah Brian but you have to make these choices now with assumptions about what the future looks like in committing to a conference for the next 15-20 years if you’re USC.
Bundling quality branded schools into larger conferences seems like the safest and most obvious play right now which is why the Texas move to the SEC was the safer play than staying with the Big 12.
USC bringing 5-7 schools to the Big Ten is the safer/more secure play for them.
Based on what they know right now: assume paytv falls 50% over 20 years, assume even with AMZN and others bidding on conference TV rights that it gets harder to draw eyeballs onto games compared to now, etc.
With all those assumptions what do you do?
If I’m USC I do the exact same analysis that Texas did.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Yeah Brian but you have to make these choices now with assumptions about what the future looks like in committing to a conference for the next 15-20 years if you’re USC.”
It’s a huge risk to make that sort of move based on a guess.
“Bundling quality branded schools into larger conferences seems like the safest and most obvious play right now which is why the Texas move to the SEC was the safer play than staying with the Big 12.”
But they can do that whenever the money is offered. Why go now?
“USC bringing 5-7 schools to the Big Ten is the safer/more secure play for them.”
You keep assuming that’s an option. I’ve seen no evidence the B10 wants that at all.
“Based on what they know right now: assume paytv falls 50% over 20 years, assume even with AMZN and others bidding on conference TV rights that it gets harder to draw eyeballs onto games compared to now, etc.
With all those assumptions what do you do?”
Nothing. You threw out 2 assumptions with no basis, and ignored the ever increasing value of rights so far.
“If I’m USC I do the exact same analysis that Texas did.”
UT had multiple willing suitors and a clear path to a huge financial gain. We don’t know that anyone wants USC who USC would also want to join. It’s also clear that USC doesn’t bring the same value as USC. Then add in distance/time zone issues and USC’s desire to play P12 teams, and it doesn’t seem at all clear that USC could/should move.
LikeLike
I think those assumptions are perfectly valid. Since paytv peaked, the # of subscribers has fallen around 25% over the past 5-8 years.
Every model that the big media and paytv companies uses probably has that number falling another 40-50% from current numbers before stabilizing somewhere in the 40-55 million range over the next 15-20 years.
Every projection is a guess based on past data and trends.
Yes the media $ keeps increasing but that’s also to a shrinking # of CFB teams over time, and now the Power 5 goes down to Power 4 which theoretically cuts another 8 teams out.
Even that is bifurcating internally with the SEC and Big Ten pulling ahead significantly.
And the Pac-12 Networks situation has to be resolved in some fashion to get much bigger payouts.
I’m fully aware USC isn’t Texas but they will likely have to do a full evaluation of their options internally and see what different possibilities look like.
Even Texas looked at the Big Ten and ACC internally before settling on the SEC.
I assume that the SEC will look at all of their options with different projections for each scenario.
LikeLike
Meant to say USC in that last line.
LikeLike
z33k,
I’m sure you do think they are valid, and you may be right. But you may also be way off. The conferences have better projections than we will ever generate, and they’re still WAGs a lot of the time. Even experts can’t foresee technology disruption coming very well.
LikeLike
Would USC accept an offer from the SEC (at that point entertaining a name change perhaps) provided 1 to 3 “bridge schools” in the PAC or even MWC were offered as well? This group probably doesnt include the 2 UC- campuses, but perhaps is picked from UA, ASU, Oregon, UU even UNLV. Texas might oppose on grounds of being podded into a western group instead of the OK-MO-ARK pod that they will likely be in once their SEC time starts. And it is probably only an option if the B10 has at least a 4 team incursion in the ACC (limiting the expansion target).
LikeLike
I feel like culturally, it’s going to be a heavy lift for schools like UCLA, Stanford, and Cal to go to the SEC.
USC would probably be able to make it work, but don’t see why the rest would agree to that.
No way they Big Ten wouldn’t take all those schools; the Big Ten would easily leap at the opportunity to add at least 6 of them (the 4 Cali schools + Oregon/Washington), and then it’s a strong possibility that we’d add Arizona and Colorado as well.
Just don’t see the benefit of the SEC over the Big Ten given their partners would probably prefer the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Just feels like it doesn’t make sense for USC’s branding.
USC separated from the other Pacific schools just doesn’t feel sensible.
Sort of feels like it diminishes them to be some far off outpost with just Arizona or Utah/Colorado as partners.
USC probably doesn’t want to leave most of them behind; they probably just want 1) a much better branded *national* conference (whether possible in the Pac-12 or Big Ten/SEC), 2) a third tier situation that works (i.e. not the Pac-12 Networks with <20 million subscribers), 3) crossover games out East with big brands (i.e. with Big Ten/SEC/ACC).
Just feels like the most obvious solution for them is joining the Big Ten with 5-7 partners. They'd get to keep most of their games out West but also get 2-3 crossover games out East with a maximum of 2 trips East.
LikeLike
Probably not. They don’t care about Cal, but UCLA is their rival. Other P12 schools mean relatively little to them except as shorter trips for games, but no MWC schools have any meaning for them.
LikeLike
No way they Big Ten wouldn’t take all those schools; the Big Ten would easily leap at the opportunity to add at least 6 of them…
I am wondering why you’re so sure that the Big Ten would “leap” at this. There are obvious disadvantages, and the numbers you use to justify it have not been vetted. There is no reliable reporting that the Big Ten is even looking at it.
I’ve no issues with discussing the pros and cons, or for advocating as a fan. But statements like “no way” and “easily leap” ought to be used sparingly. Could it happen? Sure, but the benefits are highly speculative and need to be recognized as such.
LikeLike
You’re assuming there are USC fans!
Pac 12 does have easily the lowest ratings of the P5.
LikeLike
That’s why despite the relative “stability” of the Pac-12, it should be in a less stable spot than even the Big 12 before this. As they are, they’re permanently far behind the Big Ten and SEC.
Texas was always gauging its options about conference affiliation due to the lack of population centers in the Big 12 outside of its home state.
But the Pac-12’s lack of TV draws/bad timeslots is a hard mix to overcome, and USC’s leadership (especially Bohn) has to see that.
The Pac-12 group has to do 3 things:
1) The Pac-12 teams need to be playing 1-2 games in the East/Central timezones each year with a third to a half of those games against prominent teams.
2) They need to drop Washington State/Oregon State (the 2 deadest weight programs in arguably the entire Power 5).
3) They need to combine their third tier rights into a truly national branded conference that has the pull on eyeballs that they can add to. Nobody East of the Rockies is watching Pac-12 Networks.
When you think about those 3 issues…, how is there another choice beyond switching conferences for USC? Leading 6-7 other programs to the Big Ten is literally their best chance to maintain national relevance and maximize their brand long into the future while maintaining a strong base on the West coast with the best schools out there.
I’d imagine they’ll have to think long and hard these next 6-18 months, especially after Texas/OU made such an exit out of the Big 12.
LikeLike
That’s why despite the relative “stability” of the Pac-12, it should be in a less stable spot than even the Big 12 before this.
“Should be”? According to whom? The Big 12 was unstable for a few reasons. Its two top-dog schools had already switched conferences (or looked at it) repeatedly. The conference also had very little history, having only existed since 1996. It was a marriage-of-convenience conference for most of its members. Due to its location in the center of the country, its members could easily consider belonging to other leagues with adjoining footprints—and had often done so.
None of that is true of the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Fair but I just mean because of how bad the Pac-12 Networks deal was to the point where USC/UCLA voted down an extension of their GoR relatively recently.
I don’t think longevity of conference means quite as much as it might have in the past given the moves we’ve seen in the past 10-15 years.
The economics of college sports conferences has changed more in the last 10-15 years than it did in all of the previous 100 arguably given NIL and the playoff and the massive change in the way that TV viewership is likely to work in the future and the rise and slight decline of conference networks.
This is a time when aggregation makes more sense than ever before to try to aggregate eyeballs to recreate a superbundle.
LikeLike
I just mean because of how bad the Pac-12 Networks deal was to the point where USC/UCLA voted down an extension of their GoR relatively recently.
The proposal was something like a 25–30 year extension of the GoR, which was totally unnecessary. No other league has needed to pin down its schools for that long. The Pac-12 Networks didn’t have to suck as badly as they did.
I don’t think longevity of conference means quite as much as it might have in the past given the moves we’ve seen in the past 10-15 years.
In the past 10–15 years, seven schools have left Power Five conferences. Six left the Big 12. The other four have been stable or growing. (The ACC lost Maryland, but it gained Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and partially Notre Dame — a net improvement.)
LikeLike
“ The proposal was something like a 25–30 year …”
Can you cite a source with a proposal, when it was made, and when it was voted on?
“ No other league has needed to pin down its schools for that long.”
BTN is currently operating on its original agreements, and is just past the midpoint.
LHN was scheduled to run into the mid ‘30s.
ACC is committed into the mid 30s.
Sec doesn’t have a GOR.
The only that hat sucks for P12N is the payouts, which upon inception were not the primary goal. The goals may have changed in their order of importance, but the network is fine, perhaps even overly ambitious (seven channels).
LikeLike
Can you cite a source with a proposal, when it was made, and when it was voted on?
If you Google “ucla usc decline to sign pac 12 grant of rights” it comes right up. There is a Mercury News article, which I consider a legitimate journalistic source. I don’t think it ever came to a vote: the two schools simply said no. Since a GoR requires unanimity, that was that.
BTN is currently operating on its original agreements, and is just past the midpoint.
LHN was scheduled to run into the mid ‘30s.
ACC is committed into the mid 30s.
This came up on an earlier thread. BTN was not originally 25–30 years; it was extended after the network launched successfully. LHN was 20 years. ACC is committed into the mid-30’s now, but that too is an extension of an earlier deal that was shorter.
Had USC/UCLA signed a 25–30 year deal, it would’ve been longer than any comparable agreement. Of course, this is with the backdrop that the Pac-12 Networks had already been a failure. Why would you sign up for another quarter century of that?
LikeLike
Marc,
https://web.archive.org/web/20171014193731/http://www.bigten.org/genrel/062106aad.html
The original BTN deal was 20 years, and then extended another 5 (to 2032).
LikeLike
I see the logic behind a few of the Pac12 Schools leaving to join the Big ten, if the money is indeed 20 mil a year more. I disagree with the assessment of Or. St and Wazoo being the deadest weight in Power 5. Oregon State has won 3 National Championships in baseball, made it to the elite 8 in Ncaa Men’s Bball this year. Had a top 4 finish in 2000 in football, a winning record in football 2-0 versus Notre Dame, a Heisman Trophy winner. Wazzu has had periodic runs in football but is clearly not one of the kings. I think the Pullman remote location has an effect on sustained success.
LikeLike
That’s probably a statement about TV value more than anything, which measures 1) population base, 2) brand, 3) location, etc.
OrSU has certainly had good success in other sports, but I’m just referring mainly to TV value to the contract.
LikeLike
@z33k – Correct – there’s often a big difference between “conference realignment value” and “on-the-field/court value.”
One of the best examples is Baylor, which is often cited as one of the schools that would be most likely to be left behind if the Big 12 completely imploded. That’s despite the fact that they just won the National Championship in men’s basketball, won 3 women’s basketball National Championships this century, and made 3 New Year’s Six/BCS bowls in the past decade. By any measure, Baylor is a successful athletic department at a very high level in the most high profile sports. Yet, they are deemed to have little conference realignment value because of their small home market, comparatively small fan and alumni base, lack of a national brand, and institutional fit issues with other leagues (e.g. highly religious school).
That’s why my mantra from the beginning was, “Think like a university president and not like a fan.” Kansas is probably a net negative football program, yet their institutional profile and national brand name for basketball means that they still have the highest conference realignment value of the remaining Big 12 members. (Whether that means that’s enough to find a home in another P5 league is another matter.)
LikeLike
Yeah Frank, I think the thing that hurts the Pac-12 schools the most is the time zone issue, especially the Pacific time zone.
There’s not that big of a difference between an Oregon State/Washington State and say Iowa State or Kansas State.
At least those latter two are in the central time zone though which gets you much better time slots for home games compared to all those 7-7:30 Pacific time kickoffs out west.
I feel like that’s why the Pac-12’s top brands especially need to be playing more games both against East/Central teams and in those time zones.
The question is whether they can do that as part of the Pac-12.
An alliance between the Big Ten/Pac-12 would benefit the Pac-12 as a whole most, but obviously the Big Ten probably only wants to play like 8 of those schools and wouldn’t get robust benefits like it would from expansion (i.e. BTN, control of whole inventory not just 6 games, synergy of both fanbases watching games across 22 teams instead of just separately 14/8 etc.).
LikeLike
@z33k – Honestly, I don’t think the time zone issue really matters for the Pac-12 as much as it’s talked about. Sure, if they could have added Texas and Oklahoma in the Pac-16 proposal, then that would have had the benefit of bringing top brand names in the Central Time Zone. However, I don’t think the time zone issue in and of itself is the Pac-12’s problem. The only place where the time zone really matters is in the earliest time slot of the 12 pm ET/11 am CT games, and in those cases, you wouldn’t want your best brand names like USC and Oregon playing at 9 am PT, anyway.
The biggest issues for the Pac-12 have been (1) their gamble on wholly-owning the Pac-12 Network (as opposed to partnering with another media company like Fox or Disney/ESPN) was one where they lost *badly* and left a ton of revenue on the table and (2) USC has had historic underperformance in the CFP era.
I’m not sure what the Pac-12 can realistically due about the conference network issue now, particularly when we’re at an inflection point where all media entities have to pivot toward a streaming/on-demand world. In a way, that may give the Pac-12 a natural opportunity to reset things.
On the other hand, I think people are forgetting just how powerful of a draw that USC is when they have things rolling. When you look back at the BCS era, USC was THE most largest TV draw in all of college football – more than Notre Dame, Ohio State or any SEC team. It makes sense: when a school is able to deliver Los Angeles (a larger media market by itself than every *state* other than New York, Texas and Florida plus the California market that it’s a part of) on top of being a national brand name draw and the added glamour of being a Hollywood team where they show A-list celebrities on the sidelines, networks LOVE it. When USC is playing well, no one cares about the value of an 11 am CT game – every network wants the Trojans on in prime time and front and center.
Now, I’m not saying that the Pacific Time Zone is necessarily a great thing for the Pac-12, but the point is that it isn’t getting solved by the likes of Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, anyway. Short of adding UT/OU, the best way to maximize their value by delivering the markets that they already have with a power conference monopoly on the entire Rocky Mountain region and West Coast including, most optimally, Hollywood.
LikeLike
An alliance between the Big Ten/Pac-12 would benefit the Pac-12 as a whole most….
That is the key point. Since the Big Ten has less to gain and more to lose, any such deal would need to be on favorable terms to its current members, which means less favorable to those joining.
There is probably some price at which the Big Ten would agree to make the deal you’re proposing. The question is whether the Pac-12 exiles take too much of a hit for it to be worthwhile.
LikeLike
Frank and z33k,
I think the time zones are an issue, but it is not solvable. The P12 has to decide how to trade off happiness of their fans (playing games at 3:30 pm and 7:00 pm PT) versus national exposure (playing games at 9am and noon PT). The best compromise times are the most coveted national TV windows, and the SEC and B10 tend to dominate those. On the other hand, no other P5 conference can play in the late night windows so the networks naturally want to put the P12 on then. It’s a catch-22 – the P12 needs to become more popular to get the better TV windows, but to become more popular they need the better TV windows.
The P12 also has the desert heat issue. The AZ schools can’t play day games until October due to the heat. That’s a lot of mandatory night games for a western conference.
If I ran the P12, I’d put a lot of games on at 9am and noon PT. The local fans may hate it, but they need the national exposure. So often the ESPN noon game is a crap B10 game. Have the P12 put their best game then (something Fox started doing lat year – put top games at noon ET) to counter it. Then the top B10 and SEC games can take the 3:30 and 8pm ET slots with the P12 putting lesser games at night. I’d also suggest they always have a 9pm ET game in case ABC is stuck with a blowout – be the game to switch over to while viewers are still up.
LikeLike
@Brian – Part of my concern if I’m running the Pac-12 is the risk of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater at that point regarding earlier start times. One thing that the Pac-12 has compared to the other P5 leagues is that they’re so strongly tied to true legit *major* media markets across the board: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake City. These aren’t small college towns (and even the ones that are located in small college towns such as Washington State have their alumni disproportionately located in one of the aforementioned large markets) – getting a great local rating in LA alone could drive up the national rating for the entire country. Are they really better off showing, say, Oregon State-Washington State (which is the type of game that would be a 12 pm ET-type game) to try to get some more viewers in the ET/CT areas at the expense of putting that game on a 9 am PT in the Seattle and Portland markets where they’d be getting much better regional viewership later in the day? I honestly don’t have a great answer. Maybe it ultimately *is* worth that type of trade-off, but I can understand why the Pac-12 would be highly reluctant to do so because one of the positive attributes of the conference footprint is that they have a full roster of real bona fide media markets (not just college towns).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Are they really better off showing, say, Oregon State-Washington State (which is the type of game that would be a 12 pm ET-type game) to try to get some more viewers in the ET/CT areas at the expense of putting that game on a 9 am PT in the Seattle and Portland markets where they’d be getting much better regional viewership later in the day?”
Ah, that’s the key to my plan. Fox has been moving big games to noon ET, and the P12 should focus on that. Put USC vs UW at noon ET to get national eyeballs. Save WSU vs OrSU for 10 pm ET when the west coast may watch.
“I honestly don’t have a great answer. Maybe it ultimately *is* worth that type of trade-off, but I can understand why the Pac-12 would be highly reluctant to do so because one of the positive attributes of the conference footprint is that they have a full roster of real bona fide media markets (not just college towns).”
Yes, but major media markets actually do pretty poorly for CFB. They tend to be NFL fans instead. Large non-NFL markets can be key, like SLC.
LikeLike
If the P12 insisted on a 9am local time start for a USC/UW game that would convince both schools that it was time to find a new conference be it the B1G or ACC. That is why it is not going to happen. The boosters at both schools would not stand for it, and there will not be enough additional TV money to overcome their resistance. A noon start (3pm ET) could work but not 9am.
LikeLike
Brian,
“ but major media markets actually do pretty poorly for CFB. They tend to be NFL fans instead. ”
Those markets are major due to sizes, and within them reside a significant number of alumni. No one expects nfl numbers for a college near a nfl market, but the overall CFB numbers will be enhanced inspite of comparatively reduced amount of local dedicated media coverage (compared to a college dominated town or region).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Those markets are major due to sizes, and within them reside a significant number of alumni.”
The number of actual viewers is what matters, and major cities are bad about that. Especially LA. And without bigger numbers, it doesn’t get the local coverage which drives further increases in viewers.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/01/11/alabama-ohio-state-shows-how-college-football-lost-west/6603653002/
TV viewers: The most-watched game between teams west of Kansas this season was the Pac-12 championship between USC and Oregon, which ranked 36th nationally for the season through Dec. 31 with 3.85 million average viewers, according to Sports Media Watch, which covers television ratings. The second-most watched western game was between USC and UCLA, which ranked 49th with 3.24 million viewers.
Both LA teams combine to get 3.24M viewers nationally. Last year it drew 1.94M on ABC.
It doesn’t matter how large the market is if they don’t care about the local teams.
By comparison, OSU-FAU drew 2.62M on Fox last year. OSU-NW drew 1.62M on BTN.
LikeLike
Fox is already pushing big games to noon ET. When the P12 can outdraw the other national games, then they can get more prime windows.
LikeLike
If I was Big Ten leadership looking to add up to 8 Pac-12 teams, the best structure would probably be 2 groups of 4:
Open discussions with USC first (and possibly UCLA). If USC is on board, then expand those discussions to 8: USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford/Oregon/Washington/Arizona/Colorado.
In the first group, have USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford publicly send a letter to the Pac-12 ending their GoR; then have them apply to the Big Ten for membership. Big Ten approves them.
Then, as the public discussion is focusing on the remaining 8; you can probably have Washington/Arizona/Oregon/Colorado send the same letter to the Pac-12 next. Colorado can be with either group, but Washington/Arizona/Oregon all have the issue of leaving behind their “State” school partner, so I think having them go 2nd makes sense.
Then have them apply to the Big Ten, and then the Big Ten approves them.
That’s probably the best way for them to be able to say “welp, we tried to stay in the Pac-12, but goodbye little brother”…
LikeLike
If I was Big Ten leadership looking to add up to 8 Pac-12 teams, the best structure would probably be 2 groups of 4.
What’s in it for the Big Ten? There aren’t eight Pac-12 schools the Big Ten could add, that increase the revenue payout per school — the only metric that matters.
Meantime, travel for the Big Ten gets worse. There aren’t enough attractive games to make the travel burden worthwhile.
Sure, you’d love to have Penn State vs. USC in your inventory, but those two aren’t going to play every year. The average game would be no better than the inventory the Big Ten has already.
LikeLike
It just depends on how the math works out; I tend to think that those 8 all bring enough value to justify themselves.
The current Pac-12 splits the money 12 ways and includes a Pac-12 Networks situation that pays less than $3 million per year.
If you remove that and assume say that their next T1-2 deal is going to be worth around $40 million per team, I think it’s easy to suggest that the $480 million in value is probably kept by those 8 teams in question.
Divine that by 8 and you get to $60 million without even getting to the Big Ten Network’s ability to probably push at least $6-8 million per school in that footprint.
Reason I wouldn’t leave out any of those 8 is that they all bring enough footprint value in my mind, but you’re right about inventory quality.
USC, Oregon, and Washington all bring more than enough footprint quality to justify being added.
The question is the rest more than that; can they support 5 more. I don’t know, but I think for certain that they can bring another 3 or 4 more. The question is do you leave behind the markets of Arizona and/or Colorado? Because I assume the Cali 4 are all tied together.
I tend to think Arizona and Colorado are both valuable enough to justify being added. Large/growing states where both have enough pull to pull in all the subscribers in those states to the footprint.
But you are right that 8 is probably a stretch in the sense that it reduces the number of times that say Washington/Oregon/USC play the big schools to create big matchups for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Er I should have said matchup* quality; those 3 in my mind (USC, Oregon, Washington) all bring national brand matchup quality in clashes with say Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/Nebraska/Wisconsin.
So the question is how many add ons can those 3 support; I think up to 5, but would understand arguments for 3-4 depending on footprint.
LikeLike
USC, Oregon, and Washington all bring more than enough footprint quality to justify being added. The question is the rest more than that; can they support 5 more.
That is a big question. Let’s say the eight bring enough value to improve the Big Ten significantly. If it isn’t significant, the B10 simply has no reason to do it., however much USC might beg. With eight, the travel is manageable. With only 3–4, it is not.
LikeLike
Schools will only have 5 road games max each year. The travel is manageable if only 2 (3 tops) games require long travel. You could time with bye or “buy” weeks following the travel game so that there is less impact to the following games.
LikeLike
The travel is manageable if only 2 (3 tops) games require long travel.
Ask West Virginia.
LikeLike
@Marc
West Virginia does not have any travel partners. All of their road games are a distance. Obviously that is why a USC to the B1G on its own would be a no go. But if you have 4-5 other schools that are nearby as travel partners then it works. The reality is that the travel in the Pac 12 is already pretty significant. Very few driving road trips. Just the nature of that geography.
LikeLike
West Virginia does not have any travel partners. All of their road games are a distance.
It’s not just distance. It’s also time zones. Of course, if you are desperate enough, you do it. The Big Ten, in its position of strength, has no reason to inflict that on its athletes so that USC can get a break.
LikeLike
Time will tell if the Big Ten is in a position of strength. If Ohio State’s recruiting slips due to perception and exposure of the SEC I think you will see a move. No way will OSU accept recruiting at disadvantage nationally.
LikeLike
Did Columbus move? How is their recruiting going to be hurt? UT (and OU) arguably may regain a few recruits that chose aTm (or Ark, etc) that Longhorns felt they use to get. The move may very slightly dilute the premium recruits across a portion of the SEC. How that hurts tOSU recruiting eludes me.
LikeLike
Ohio State recruits nationally. The number of recruits they get each year from Ohio has dropped quite a bit the past 10 years. If these national recruits (consider the latest 5 star QB from Texas) decide playing in the B1G has lost appeal you can bet changes will be made. All of the recruiting and TV attention will be on the SEC. That conference will produce a significantly greater share of the NFL pool compared to current. You may even see a greater share of the Midwest’s top recruits leaving to play in the SEC.
Certainly there is more NFL talent in the SEC currently as measured by draft picks but the B1G still produces a significant number and is viewed as a developer of future NFL talent. If that gap widens dramatically I think recruiting becomes even more difficult. And recruiting will drive everything including national leverage/power and future media rights distributions.
LikeLike
13 of Ohio St.’s 23 recruits were outside the Big 10 footprint. I know they got the top 2 in Washington and the top player in Texas for both 2021 and 2022 (early enrollee). 4 others were in the SEC footprint. Maybe those Washington players go to Alabama or Georgia and those in the SEC footprint also go to SEC schools. They also got 2 VA and 1 NC player, along with AZ and CO.
Recruiting the 5 stars has become much more national than it used to be. Ohio St. has benefitted.
LikeLike
@Bullet You captured my thoughts exactly. National recruiting for top talent may change. The Iowa’s and the Wisconsin’s of the world probably aren’t impacted much. It’s really the programs competing for National Championships
LikeLike
Don’t forget UBC.
LikeLike
OSU isn’t going anywhere due to SEC strength. The top programs recruit well regardless. Perhaps you forget the national narrative 15 years ago, but everyone said the B10 was terrible and the SEC was everything back then, too. OSU has improved its recruiting since then.
LikeLike
“ National recruiting for top talent may change.”
How? National brands have always recruited nationally, and successfully. Are you suggesting that the potential shift of a few aTm recruiting wins “back” to UT somehow will change tOSUs recruiting outreach? Adding a school that went something like 52-46 in the B12 the last 11 years is going to increase the attractiveness of…,, Alabama?
LikeLike
There have been suggestions that the expansion of the CFP be put on hold, and that even that if it goes through that the number of representatives from any one conference be significantly limited. This raises another issue.
The formation of a super conference with all the football Kings, or even the concentration of most of the Kings into an existing conference, like the SEC, might not be possible.
The remaining schools and conferences would have majority control of both the NCAA and the CFP. They could isolate the Kings conference by refusing to play them in any regular season sport, and by excluding them from both the NCAA championships, including the men’s and women’s basketball tournament, and the CFP. If a conference loses all its OOC games and most if not all post season games, will its TV value decline?
Existing NCAA rules might not envision expulsion of a conference, but the non-Kings conferences could leave the current NCAA and CFP and form new ones without the Kings. Whether any of that is an antitrust issue, I don’t know. But the mere threat would likely prevent any more Kings from jumping to the SEC.
Of course, the remaining Kings like OSU, Clemson, FSU, USC et al. have expressed no interest in joining UT and OK in the SEC. SEC expansion may be over.
If UT and OK had gone to the B1G, the B1G would be the bad guy today, not the SEC. The B1G may have gotten lucky, and dodged a bullet.
This does not exclude further realignments, but poaching schools does not seem possible, because of the boycott possibility.
LikeLike
That’s just not going to work because the superconferences have the $/clout.
If you try to put the screws on them… then guess what happens, they just take their ball and go home.
Say the Big Ten joins the SEC by taking 6-8 schools out of the Pac-12.
At that point, if everyone else tries to freeze those 2 out, they can just laugh. Why? The ACC is the only real competitor and they don’t have enough clout alone.
Big Ten and SEC can say fine, we’ll play our own national championship and make the Rose Bowl/Sugar Bowl our conference championships with each having their own semifinals even on the normal conference championship weekend.
You can’t freeze out the schools that people want to see and most of those are going to end up consolidated in 1-3 conferences over time.
LikeLike
There have been suggestions that the expansion of the CFP be put on hold, and that even that if it goes through that the number of representatives from any one conference be significantly limited.
The playoff is going to expand. I don’t see any significant push to keep it at four permanently. The “pause” was probably going to happen anyway. It was always a pipe dream to that you’d get immediate and 100% agreement to tear up the current deal before it expires. The limit most commonly suggested is 3 or 4 per conference, which is still win–win for everybody (given the original premises of expansion, which were money and access.)
The remaining schools and conferences would have majority control of both the NCAA and the CFP. They could isolate the Kings conference by refusing to play them in any regular season sport, and by excluding them from both the NCAA championships, including the men’s and women’s basketball tournament, and the CFP.
There’s no reason to think that would happen. College sports have stratified repeatedly; first with the split into Divisions I, II, and III; then with the split of Division I into FBS and FCS; and then with the further split of FBS into the Power Five and all others. Through it all, they’ve continued playing each other in basketball and the non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
Pac12 fan, I think Texas Tech would be a great add to the conference. Lubbock would be the 2nd closest city to Boulder and geographically would fit the best. a suggestion of how to make it work:You play all in your division plus 3 in other divisions with exception of SW/Mtn where it would rotate 3 and 2
Mtn/SW Calif NW Divisions
TT Stanf Wash
CU Cal WSU
Utah USC Ore
AZ UCLA Or. St.
ASU
If Ok State were included I would suggest a zipper format, you play the 6th in your division and 1 permanent rival plus 2 rotating :
Div1 Perm Rival Div2
TT OK St
CU Utah
AZ ASU
USC UCLA
Stanford Cal
Or. St OR
WSU UW
This is assuming that the conferences will have more of a say on how to run their own championships. I really think Pac12 needs to expand to get into the Texas Market, this would allow games in the early 9am window and allow increased recruiting into Texas.
LikeLike
I look forward to being ruled by our Ferengi overlords, and college athletics being governed by the soon to be reformed National Collegiate Acquisition Association. All hail dolla-dolla!!
🙄
LikeLike
263rd Rule of Acquisition: “Never allow doubt to tarnish your lust for latinum.”
LikeLike
The discussion on here about 6-8 Pac 12 teams to the B1G, along with comments made by mods on Longhorn sites and Billy Liucci of TexAgs that SEC realignment isn’t over (maybe for now, but more to come eventually) has me wondering if a 24 team B1G and 24 team SEC might be the ultimate destination, with AFC/NFC type playoffs within each conference, culminating in the Super Bowl of college football.
Taking those eight Pac 12 teams gets the B1G to 22, and then 10-15 years from now (as ACC GOR is close to winding down), the B1G takes two ACC teams and the SEC takes eight (or maybe a West Virginia or some ascending G5 team gets included) and we have our two super leagues.
LikeLike
Christian, if the SEC expands further it seems locistically that it would be best pickin’s from the Big XII and ACC. WV, Kansas (a longtime Mizzou archrival) and maybe disembowel the ACC with Clemson and FSU. As far as the PAC-12, that ship has sailed.
LikeLike
If the Pac-12 and ACC both get raided then yeah we’d basically be down to 2 major conferences.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/sports/2021/7/13/2020Tokyo.aspx
The B10 sent 188 people to the Olympics (166 athletes, 22 coaches/staff) and they won 51 total medals (22 G, 14 S, 15 B). There were lots of team medals (WVB, MBB, WBB, W soccer, baseball, relays, …) as well as some individual ones.
Gold – 19 team, 3 individual (2 in wrestling, 1 in swimming)
Silver – 6* team, 8 individual (1 wrestling, 3 swimming, 2 T&F, 2 diving*)
Bronze – 11 team, 4 individual (2 wrestling, 2 swimming)
Team medals count every person on a team that wins a medal, so in women’s soccer 4 on team Canada got gold and 3 on team USA got bronze netting 7 team medals. Coaches and staff don’t count for medals.
* – the B10 had both members of the men’s 3m synchronized diving team, so I counted those as individual medals
The B10 had 5 of the 9 US medals in wrestling, and had just 7 wrestlers in the Olympics. All 5 on team USA won medals. Wrestling was team USA’s 3rd best sport for total medals behind swimming (30) and track & field (26) (both of which are a ton of events lumped into one group).
Since the advent of the modern Olympic Games in 1896 in Athens, Greece, nearly 1,400 competitors with Big Ten ties have participated in either the Summer or Winter Olympics, winning more than 600 medals, including nearly 300 gold.
LikeLike
“ (both of which are a ton of events lumped into one group).”
And competitors are allowed to enter multiple events within their category. 100M freestyle swimmer can enter the 100, the 400 freestyle relay, and the freestyle leg of the medley. 3 medal opportunities doing the exact same thing over the same distance.
LikeLike
Wilner: Keep USC Happy.
LikeLike
From last week’s Denver Post:
Kiszla vs. Keeler: Should CU Buffs dump Pac-12 Conference and join Big Ten?
College football is on the verge of money-grubbing chaos. How should the Buffs respond? And if the Mountain West crumbles, where would the CSU Rams go?
By SEAN KEELER | skeeler@denverpost.com and MARK KISZLA | mkiszla@denverpost.com | The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: August 2, 2021 at 1:11 p.m. | UPDATED: August 2, 2021 at 7:02 p.m.
Kiz: Did y’all hear? Texas and Oklahoma are joining the Southeastern Conference. Well, I’ll be gol dang. There’s your proof anybody can develop a taste for grits if you bribe ’em with enough fresh cabbage. Perish the Big 12 and hail a new era of super-duper conferences. College football is on the verge of money-grubbing chaos. How should the CU Buffs respond? And if the Mountain West crumbles, where would the CSU Rams go?
Keeler: Whether you’re the Buffs or the Rams, the answer is the same: Work the dang phones. No matter how many Chip Dillers plead for calm and reason, all is not well. (Unless you’re a Disney exec.) Pandemonium is knocking at the door. The Big 12 could be toast. The NCAA, at least as we knew it and mocked it, almost certainly is. The autonomous power conferences that already run football themselves are a good bet to splinter off completely. There could be 60-to-65 FBS schools who hold all the cards, and another 70 wondering what to do with their departments. Whatever it takes to land in the former group, you do it. Even if it means reaching out to the Big Ten, the Pepsi to the SEC’s Coke, you do it. For the Rams, though, a call from college football’s Premier League would be the mother of all long shots. At CSU, you accept the ceiling and do everything possible to preserve the floor.
Kiz: Yep, the Buffs can feel smug about bolting the Big 12 when the getting was good. But has the Pac-12 ever made sense for the football program? The honest answer is no. And, truth be known, everybody in Boulder misses the Cornhuskers from Nebraska more than we’d like to admit. I don’t know if the Big Ten will come calling, but the Buffs should practice saying, “Yes, please!” if the phone rings. CU has no recruiting advantage against USC, which has a beach in its backyard. But coach Karl Dorrell might score big in recruiting if he can give farm boys a choice between the flatlands of the Midwest and the mountains of Colorado.
Keeler: True, but here’s the thing: Culturally and financially, the Pac-12 fits. From the Rockies westward is where CU’s heart and fundraising dollars largely reside. Did Larry Land work out as promised? Two bowl seasons aside, heck no. The Buffs are torn between a football tradition rooted in Midwestern/Southwestern rivalries and an administration that sees itself more aligned with Stanford and UCLA. But you’re absolutely right: CU being chided forever as the “Berkeley of the Big Eight” was what made it unique in the Big Eight and the Big 12. In the Pac-12, it’s just another Berkeley. California has 13ers. Utah has 13ers. Michigan doesn’t.
Kiz: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. I don’t know if there’s a sliver of amateur idealism left in college athletics, but there’s certainly big money to be made. That new football stadium up in Fort Collins is in imminent danger of becoming a $220 million white elephant, because as wealth disparity in the sport grows, the Rams seem doomed to slip from an after-thought to a have-not. The Buffs must follow the money, wherever that leads them. I’m guessing the cash will be greenest in the Big Ten.
Keeler: The Big Ten will twist logic and ethics to keep Ohio State and to make the Buckeyes happy. The Pac-12 is as stable as USC, Oregon and Washington want it to be. But it’s every school for itself right now. In a playoff world, where the Rose Bowl and every other sacred cow is getting tipped by television money, what’s to stop the Pac-12’s big three from the temptation of breaking away? The Big Ten likes money and membership in the Association of American Universities, in that order. The Buffs may not be sexy enough to move the needle on the former, but at least they belong to the latter. The Rams have neither. And that wealth gap, the one between the “haves” and everybody else, is only going to grow larger.
LikeLike
The Pac12 Network unmasked that conference’s grim reality. The passion is not there. It is simply not equipped to remain financially competitive in this emerging media landscape. Not without a host to feed off. Paying it’s universities proportionally, commensurate to brand value, is the ONLY way they will keep USC in the fold, and I don’t see that happening. I doubt anything will happen for a year or so, but I would be shocked if the PAC12 and B1G don’t come to an agreement before the next contract. It’s a win/win, but only if it involves the schools that carry their own weight. Round out the 20 with West Coast obsessed ND and you’ve trumped the SEC.
LikeLike
*its
LikeLike
The Pac12 Network unmasked that conference’s grim reality. The passion is not there.
No…as FTT explained upthread, the Pac-12 stupidly gambled on owning the network themselves, instead of partnering with a media company as all of the other leagues did. As he put it, the league “lost *badly* and left a ton of revenue on the table.”
Paying it’s universities proportionally, commensurate to brand value, is the ONLY way they will keep USC in the fold.
Beware of posts suggesting that a particular answer is the ONLY answer. One of the Pac’s advantages is that USC has no realistic realignment option on its own, and it is far from clear the Big Ten would want to merge with a full slate of Western schools.
Round out the 20 with West Coast obsessed ND and you’ve trumped the SEC.
Notre Dame isn’t “West coast obsessed.” They play one West Coast game a year.” To quote Frank again, anytime your realignment idea involves Notre Dame joining a conference, it’s not a plan; it’s a prayer that won’t be answered.
LikeLike
Marc,
While I agree their P12N approach was incorrect, EndeavorWMEdani is correct that they P12 lacks the level and amount of fan passion that the south, southeast and midwest have for CFB.
LikeLike
Hmm. Curious. I was in the student section for three games against Notre Dame. The fact you don’t know they play Stanford each year makes it easy to dismiss the rest of your emotional, fact-free post. As a stand alone entity it doesn’t matter who the PAC 12 partners with, their ratings are garbage. There is no passion. What they do have are a handful of brands with national appeal. The only way to maximize their value is to go where the action is. As for your (and, according to you, Frank’s) assertion that USC will stand idly by and watch as the other blue bloods make 50 million a year more than them, because they have ‘no realistic realignment options’, is comedy of the highest order. With contract time approaching, the PAC has two options. Pay their individual brands market value or merge with a partner for a rights deal that can raise all boats. I’m sorry, but if you truly believe the status quo will suffice based on some sense of conference loyallty, there’s nothing more to be said. I do agree with you on one thing. At the present time, Notre Dame has no incentive to join a conference, and would NEVER join the B1G without a seismic realignment that sees the ACC poached by the SEC and the B1G poaching/merging with the cream of the PAC. I believe market forces make this very possible. Obviously you disagree. Have a good day.
LikeLike
EndeavorWMEdani,
I think you 2 are talking past each other. ND plays USC and Stanford each year, but only 1 game is in CA each year. To Marc that is 1 west coast game per year. To you, playing a west coast team in South Bend is also a west coast game.
“As for your (and, according to you, Frank’s) assertion that USC will stand idly by and watch as the other blue bloods make 50 million a year more than them, because they have ‘no realistic realignment options’, is comedy of the highest order.”
The P12 has lagged in revenue for decades, and USC hasn’t gone anywhere. The absolute size of the gap has changed, but has it changed as a percentage?
https://www.al.com/sports/2012/12/conference_realignment_follow.html
Conference payout per school in 2000:
ACC – $8.1M
B10 – $7.2M
SEC – $6.6M
P12 – $5.4M (-33% from #1)
B12 – $4.8M
Conference payout per school in 2010:
B10 – $22.9M
SEC – $19.5M
ACC – $12.3M
B12 – $10.8M
P12 – $9.4M (-59% from #1)
Conference payout per school in 2020:
B10 – $54.3M
SEC – $45.5M
B12 – $38M
P12 – $33.6M (-38% from #1)
ACC – $33M
That’s an average of -43% from #1 each year.
Or do they care about how they compare to the lowest other P5 conference? They’ve always been about the same as the other lowest P5 conference. So I don’t think $50M is really the concern, it’s that percentage gap to the top and how close they are to at least 1 other power conference.
And remember, a growing amount of this payout will be CFP money after the expansion. The P12 will presumably get an equal share as other P5 (or P4) conferences, so that increases the totals and makes $50M a smaller percentage. That’s not to say USC, and especially their fans, are happy with it. But nobody has pointed out a credible alternative for them.
“With contract time approaching, the PAC has two options.”
That’s never true.
“Pay their individual brands market value or merge with a partner for a rights deal that can raise all boats.”
The P10 used to pay the schools unequally, and they promised USC and UCLA extra money when the P12 started until/unless the P12 hit a certain total revenue.
In addition to a small broadcast rights fee contract, the PAC-10 already shares revenues unequally. Under the current system, TV rights fees are distributed based on the number of TV appearances. The two teams playing in a televised game split 64% of the revenues from the game, while the remaining 8 teams in the conference split the other 34%. This led to an unequal distribution of TV rights fees in 2007-08 and 2008-09 under which Stanford and WSU got only $14 million while USC got $22 million.
And OOC game revenue used to go straight to each school. So they could go back to that, though that might anger the rest of the P12 members.
“I’m sorry, but if you truly believe the status quo will suffice based on some sense of conference loyallty, there’s nothing more to be said.”
How about a lack of choices? They won’t join the B12 and the B10 isn’t offering.
On an unrelated note:
Evidence that 9am PT games trump late night games for the P12.
LikeLike
I believe USC would consider football independence; and their longstanding relationship with Notre Dame would facilitate that. As for the other sports, if the Pac-12 kicked them out, so what? I’m sure any other West Coast conferences would gladly take them.
LikeLike
Consider, sure. Actually become independent? I doubt it. Their schedule quality would drop drastically while their travel increased. If the P12 teams won’t play them, they would lose their key rivalries outside of ND. They would lose their link to the Rose Bowl (if any exists in the future for the P12), too. USC doesn’t have the national fan base to lean back on that ND does. They don’t have die hard fans all over the US, they have bandwagon fans when they’re good. They wouldn’t get as good of a TV deal as ND has, and everyone seems to agree that ND is leaving a lot of TV money on the table by not joining the ACC. If ND can’t earn more than the ACC, how would USC outearn the P12?
As for their other sports, I’m not convinced they would easily find a home. There are limited options out west, basically the Big West and the WCC. Does the WCC want another large independent, this time with even more money to spend? It’s mostly smaller religious schools. Does USC want to drop from playing UCLA and Cal to the Cal States and lesser Cal-somewheres in the Big West? Would the BW agree? They are all CSU or UC members except for Hawaii and they also don’t have the budgets to match USC. I suppose USC can dump any leftover sports into the MPSF.
Would the #3 school in NCAA titles really leave the league of champions (and #1 Stanford and #2 UCLA) to play Cal State Northridge and UC Davis?
LikeLike
I appreciate your thoughtful response Brian. Coming from an industry that considers ‘what is past is prologue’, I just believe the underlying currents that led to Texas making their bold decision portends big changes ahead. Especially for the brand stiffling Pac12.
LikeLike
EndeavorWMEdani,
The risk with that thought process is that all the big brands are unique. USC is not UT and vice versa. And ND is something else. They have different cultures, different goals, different fan bases, different locations, different situations, and different options. What makes sense for one may make no sense for another.
Are more changes coming eventually? Probably. But who and when nobody knows.
LikeLike
He probably didnt see “Texit” coming either, but this is what the KState AD is thinking.
LikeLike
The surprise about “Texit” is not that it happened, but the timing. Everyone knew that Texas would reconsider leaving the Big 12 as the grant of rights approached expiration. We just didn’t expect it so soon. I cannot recall any school leaving a conference with four years’ notice.
I know, some people think Texas and Oklahoma are going to negotiate (or litigate) an earlier split, but there has been no noise whatsoever from the schools themselves. They asked for, and received, an invitation to join the SEC on July 1, 2025. The date was explicit from all parties.
The four-year gap gives the other conferences time to think it over. There’s no reason for any conference to rush into a sub-optimal deal. Many of the proposals in the media (and on this message board) have dubious benefits, and are based on the assumption that the other conferences “have to do something.”
Doing “something” that makes your situation worse (or fails to improve it significantly) is not going to feel very good after the sugar rush of the big announcement wears off.
LikeLike
Maybe the Big Ten can also extend an invitation to Texas and they can think it over for 4 years. University Presidents may surprise everyone in the end.
LikeLike
Maybe the Big Ten can also extend an invitation to Texas and they can think it over for 4 years.
They could, but I can’t think of anything the Big Ten could offer to entice them. In the next media deal, the SEC’s payout is likely to be higher than the B10’s, and it surely won’t be worse. The SEC has more of the schools that top recruits want to be playing against. Several of their former conference mates are already there. The weather is more favorable. The cultural fit is better.
LikeLike
@Marc –
I know, some people think Texas and Oklahoma are going to negotiate (or litigate) an earlier split, but there has been no noise whatsoever from the schools themselves. They asked for, and received, an invitation to join the SEC on July 1, 2025. The date was explicit from all parties.
They have to say that to avoid litigation. It makes sense that they will attempt negotiate an earlier exit, otherwise why announce now? They may not come to an agreement, but I’m confident that before they announced there was an exit strategy in place.
LikeLike
Mike – the Aggies were trying to blow up the UT & OU to the SEC move by exposing it when they did, trying to set the narrative and hoping to galvanize political support against the move in Oklahoma and Texas. All they did was speed up the announcement.
LikeLike
But they may have slowed and caused a reconsideration of when, and the form of playoff expansion.
LikeLike
cc- I doubt the Aggies even thought of the repercussions on the proposed playoff format.
I will say that it is very short-sighted for the rest of CFB not to adopt the proposed playoff format just because they are mad at ESPN, Greg Sankey and the SEC. The proposed playoff format benefits all conferences by way of access to the playoff and generates hundreds of millions of dollars for everyone prior the expiration of the current contract.
Just because it also benefits the SEC and ESPN should be beside the point. It’s like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
LikeLike
“the Aggies were trying to blow up the UT & OU to the SEC move by exposing it when they did”
The reporter who broke the story has repeatedly said it wasn’t part of some organized campaign by Texas A&M, and that he found out about the move while researching 10 year anniversary stories on A&M’s conference move. He called all sorts of sources he hadn’t talked to in awhile, not just at A&M, and one of those sources let him in on the upcoming move.
The reporter thinks the A&M AD had no idea it was happening when he released the story (which, if you watched the interviews at the time, seemed to be the case).
The story broke at the worst possible time for A&M…minutes before Jimbo Fisher was about to take the podium at SEC media days to talk about his preseason top-10 team. If A&M wanted to scuttle it, a better time would have been at the beginning of SEC media days, right before Greg Sankey’s address. Or even better, right before Big 12 media days the week before.
I don’t think the revelation changed the timetable at all. They might have wanted to delay it a few weeks, but the powers that be would definitely have wanted to have it come out about this time so it will be an accepted fact long before the Texas Legislature has a session where it could do anything about it.
LikeLike
m(Ag), the Aggies were totally trying to blow up Texas/OU to the SEC:
– ADs usually don’t attend media days. Observers were wondering why Ross Bjork was there, and now we know. He had his talking points ready to go once the news broke.
– The news breaking right before Jimbo took the stage was coordinated, as well. Jimbo had his talking points and quips ready to go, plus the Aggies didn’t want to upset their conference mates by upstaging their respective media days’ press conference, so they carefully timed it to happen right as Jimbo started speaking. There are no coincidences in life.
– The SEC’s preferred timing was to pass the 12 team playoff structure, then announce Texas/OU. By leaking the news early, the Aggies have jeopardized the number of SEC teams that can make the 12 team playoff, as we now have the Pac 12 and other interested parties suggesting that there needs to be a 3 team cap on number of teams from one conference, and that perhaps the changes should take place after the current deal expires.
We will hear a lot of Aggie revisionist history now that they can’t stop the additions, but don’t believe it.
LikeLike
Alan,
I disagree.
“I will say that it is very short-sighted for the rest of CFB not to adopt the proposed playoff format just because they are mad at ESPN, Greg Sankey and the SEC.”
They haven’t rejected expansion, they’ve said maybe we should slow down and think about it thoroughly first. After all, only a handful of people had any say in the development of the plan and then the committee was asked to vote after a very short time. They didn’t have time to think deeply on the implications and gather feedback from the other stakeholders they represent (presidents, ADs, coaches, players, fans). A lot of important questions were not even considered. Are home sites the right choice with northern schools in the mix? When exactly will the games be played? Who will pay for keeping all northern stadiums safe to play into mid-December? How will the CFP money be split?
This move by UT and OU served as a reminder that many things can change and any long term CFP agreement has to account for those potential changes. Is 6 conference champs always the right number, or was that based on having 5 power conferences? Is 12 the correct size, or was that also based on there being a P5? Should there be limits on how many teams can come from 1 conference? Should there be minimum criteria that champs have to meet to get in? The old CFP money split was based don the P5 having major bowl deals. If the Sugar Bowl drops the B12, how does that change things?
Most importantly, is it wise to sell the entire CFP rights to one network? The pro leagues always get multiple networks involved, in part to keep them covering the sport all season and all year. It also keeps the bidding high. Why should they give ESPN sole bidding rights for an expanded playoff when they can wait and get others involved?
“The proposed playoff format benefits all conferences by way of access to the playoff and generates hundreds of millions of dollars for everyone prior the expiration of the current contract.”
In the absolute sense it may, but in the relative sense does it help everyone? Or does it really grow the SEC’s relative advantage over everyone else?
“Just because it also benefits the SEC and ESPN should be beside the point.”
No, it shouldn’t.
1. The SEC is the competition/enemy. What’s good for the SEC is often bad for everyone else in CFB.
2. What’s good for ESPN may mean the conferences are leaving money on the table.
3. Most importantly, ESPN is not a neutral party in CFB. First, ESPN has monopoly power in coverage of CFB. They carry more games than anyone else, but more importantly they dominate non-game coverage of CFB on TV and online. ESPN has the entire postseason plus the CFP rankings releases. They have a vested interest in supporting what they own, and they are in bed with the SEC (and ACC to a lesser extent). And remember that ESPN is both the dominant sports news network and the game carrier. ESPN has been known for years to have biased coverage of sports slanted towards what they own (see NHL coverage when ESPN had rights and when they didn’t, for example). They have also long been accused of favoring the SEC because that’s where the most intense fans are. So if they own the SEC and the entire CFP, they are incentivized to slant all their coverage to aggrandizing the SEC and getting them every possible CFP slot.
They need to very carefully consider the power of ESPN in CFB and whether it needs to be constrained, as well as whether Fox or someone else might be willing to spend more to get part of the rights
“It’s like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
More like cutting out a cancer, potentially. Sometimes you need to take a little short term pain for better long term health of the overall body.
LikeLike
Alan:
“ The proposed playoff format benefits all conferences by way of access to the playoff and generates hundreds of millions of dollars for everyone prior the expiration of the current contract.”
And it became obvious that increased access reduced a potential impediment for a king or two to join a conference with several kings already there.
“… very short-sighted for the rest of CFB not to adopt the proposed playoff format just because they are mad at ESPN, Greg Sankey and the SEC.”
I’m sure there will be a new playoff format adopted. It needs to be beneficial to all the member schools and their futures, not a rung on the ladder to the “NFL Lite.”
“ It’s like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
If the nose has become riddled with metastatic cancer that might be the best move, if other measures (reconsider form and timing) aren’t tried. If the eventual end is 24-36 power team association that is a threat to half or more of BCS schools plus the rest of G5/6
LikeLike
I will say that it is very short-sighted for the rest of CFB not to adopt the proposed playoff format just because they are mad at ESPN. . . .
They are practically certain to expand the playoff. I have not heard any significant push to keep it at four permanently.
Some of the blowback is for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with UT and OU moving to the SEC. For example, Ohio State’s concern about outdoor December games in cold weather is something they would probably have raised regardless.
Even without realignment, I think the committee was possibly a bit optimistic that the 12-team playoff would be adopted quickly. There are just too many people who would want the chance to put their stamp on it.
Remember, until the current deal expires, it cannot change unless 100% of the signatories agree. That gives even minor parties an incredible amount of leverage, which they’d be foolish to squander.
LikeLike
@Alan –
the Aggies were trying to blow up the UT & OU to the SEC move by exposing it when they did, trying to set the narrative and hoping to galvanize political support against the move in Oklahoma and Texas.
I 100% believe the Aggies leaked it and I assume the author (Zwerneman IIRC) will never say so to protect his sources. If the Aggies were trying to blow up the move they sure picked an odd time. Both the Oklahoma and Texas* legislatures were out of their regular sessions. Oklahoma State’s president (IIRC) was in Asia. IMHO, the plan was to announce after SEC media days and the Aggies just leaked it to steal a bit of the thunder.
*Yes Texas was in a special session but Abbot wasn’t going to add it to the special session.
LikeLike
“ADs usually don’t attend media days. Observers were wondering why Ross Bjork was there, and now we know. He had his talking points ready to go once the news broke.”
Ross Bjork has said he went to the event 3 times when he was the Ole Miss AD. And he didn’t have “talking points” ready. He came across very unprepared in the interviews, basically repeating “A&M wants to be the only SEC school in Texas” in various ways. Noone who saw his interviews could think he was prepared.
“The news breaking right before Jimbo took the stage was coordinated, as well. Jimbo had his talking points and quips ready to go, plus the Aggies didn’t want to upset their conference mates by upstaging their respective media days’ press conference, so they carefully timed it to happen right as Jimbo started speaking.”
This is really a bizarre assertion. Anytime before SEC media days started (including weeks before it started) would have been better. It would have dominated the sports world without obscuring A&M’s time at the podium.
“revisionist history”
It’s only supposition that A&M had some organized campaign. The fact that the supposition has been repeated multiple times does not make it true. The only person who knows is the reporter who wrote the story, and he has denied it.
LikeLike
Mike,
I agree they said that for legal protection and I’m sure they hope to move sooner, but there could’ve been other reasons to announce early. By announcing now, they knew the TX state government couldn’t interfere with the legislature out of session and the governor in favor of the move.
LikeLike
@Brian – I agree its possible, I just can’t see how during the six months they were planning this move they didn’t have a better plan to leave the Big 12 other than wait four years.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think it’s safer to say they had a hope. You can plan to negotiate, but it takes both sides to be willing. I think the other B12 members would rather burn it to the ground than give an inch to OU and UT right now. Maybe once crowd reactions get ugly at some games they’ll feel otherwise, but I think they intend to make life miserable for the next four years for those 2. I’d look for changes to schedules (where games are played, and when for non-TV sports) and a lot of meetings without those 2 invited.
At some point UT and OU may choose to leave early and risk the consequences. Then the legal fights may get ugly, since all their home game rights would still belong to the B12. ESPN would need to tread carefully, too.
LikeLike
@Brian –
I think it’s safer to say they had a hope.
They had to know what the reaction was going to be. These are huge business decisions, it would be almost negligent if their entire plan was “hope.” I’m not saying you are wrong, but if I was a fan or alum of one of those teams, I would expect more.
LikeLike
Mike,
How could they have more than that? You can call it a plan, but they can’t force the B12 to negotiate with them. So “plan” A was to negotiate an early exit if the B12 was willing, and plan B may be to leave a little early and eat the penalties while plan C is to suck it up for 4 years.
LikeLike
@Brian –
How could they have more than that? You can call it a plan, but they can’t force the B12 to negotiate with them.
When Nebraska announced they were leaving, they pretty much had their lawsuit ready to file on why they should be allowed to leave without a fee. No one at Nebraska expected anything more than a settlement to come out of it. If I were an UT/OU fan, I would expect what ever legal maneuver they are going to use to force a settlement* to be ready to go. The field is so tilted toward the remaining eight in your plans (A, B and C), I would be shocked if that’s the only options OU and UT had when they announced. They might have, but I just don’t understand making the announcement now and enduring a four year divorce.
*i.e. the Big 12 violated its bylaws by doing X therefore we seek the remedy of Y.
LikeLike
Mike,
That assumes they have any grounds for such a lawsuit. Maybe the B12 learned from last time and tightened up their bylaws in ways that are harder to scheme your way out of. Almost like they knew UT was looking for a better location all the time and that OU would go with them.
UT and OU might “expect” a settlement, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get one. The other 8 have no incentive not to fight since they are screwed the minute UT and OU leave.
“If I were an UT/OU fan, I would expect what ever legal maneuver they are going to use to force a settlement* to be ready to go.”
Feel free to point out what that maneuver would be and why the others wouldn’t fight it. Until someone points it out or UT/OU file said suit, I am not aware of what this strategy would be. Maybe they’re waiting for the others to do something actionable out of anger in order to have grounds to get out.
“The field is so tilted toward the remaining eight in your plans (A, B and C), I would be shocked if that’s the only options OU and UT had when they announced. They might have, but I just don’t understand making the announcement now and enduring a four year divorce.”
Show me Plan D. They can stay, they can eat the penalties and leave early, or they can try to settle. Multiple people have pointed out that the move was conveniently timed to avoid any possible interference by the TX and OK state governments. TAMU leaking it is another possible answer – ideally for UT/OU and the SEC they would’ve waited until the CFP expansion got approved and everyone else realized they got played. Or it was part of them trying to follow the bylaws by announcing contact with an outside party.
Until someone shows me legal leverage, I don’t believe they have any. I think they are hoping the B12 won’t want a 4 year divorce or the risk of dirty laundry getting aired in a lawsuit, just as in prior realignment. The difference is that none of the earlier moves killed a P5 conference. The ACC could settle with UMD and move on. The B12 survived losing NE and CU because UT and OU were still there.
LikeLike
@Brian – It will be interesting to see. Generally speaking, I think that the Big 12 has a lot of leverage here compared to UT and OU today. However, they don’t really have that same level of leverage all the way until 2025. In reality, each season that goes by that UT and OU are still in the Big 12, the league’s leverage goes down. The maximum power that the Big 12 has to extract exit fees from UT and OU is right now until the 2022 season. Once the 2022 season begins, it goes down substantially because the damages related to a breach of a grant of rights agreement are based on how much time is left in that agreement.
I’d compared it to the MLB trade deadline: a team that is out of pennant race is going to get a whole lot more in return trading a star that has 3 years left on a contract than if that same stat has 3 months left on a contract.
Similarly, the Big 12 has a stronger case for to extract damages from UT and OU if they leave in 2022 than 2023 and you could argue that UT and OU should owe the league absolutely nothing if they wait until 2025 to leave.
So, the Big 12 has the upper hand here, but they’re honestly more on the clock compared to UT and OU. Realistically, the Big 12’s best chance for maximum exit fees from UT and OU is to get it settled in time for them to leave for the 2022 season. That’s why there’s such a high expectation that a deal will be made “soon” (meaning enough time for a 2022 move) – it really does behoove the Big 12 as much (or even more than) UT/OU to act on that timeline despite any public statements.
LikeLike
If the Little 8 burn all their bridges they will be greatly diminished in 2025. They have the most leverage now and should not only be negotiating with UT/OU, but more importantly with ESPN and FOX to secure what they can going forward. ESPN has half of the best B12 football games (round robin selection from the top so ESPN/FOX split the good games and FOX gets all the bad games) and all of B12 basketball. The B12 needs to determine now what they can get sans UT/OU for the 2022-24 seasons, and going forward after the 2024 football season. It does not matter what the B1G, PAC, or SEC negotiates in TV rights. The B12 will be able to get a better deal from ESPN during the next year than they will be able to get in the next 5-10 years.
The B12 schools also have leverage to strike valuable OoC deals with OU and UT now that will not be available if this is dragged out. OkSt may not want the last Bedlam game to be in 2024 which it will if OU is still in the B12 at that time.
LikeLike
Frank,
I know the penalties will decrease every year, but that’s because they get the value of having them around. And I agree the penalties should drop to zero in 2025, but the bylaws include a penalty for leaving early and they agreed to it.
I’m not clear on how a GoR violation works. Their rights stay with the B12. Does that mean Fox can air UT and OU home games as part of the B12 deal? After all, wouldn’t Fox air the most valuable games they have access to? Or can the B12 force them to air true B12 games only, with UT and OU home games not being televised by anyone? They get to split the money 8 ways after UT and OU leave, I believe. But would Fox pay that same amount if they can’t air UT and OU games? I think that the B12 would rather have 4 years worth of UT and OU drawing TV ratings for them than either alternative.
The B12 can withhold payments to UT and OU to cover penalties already earned. They can also sue them for compensation if they owe money. Perhaps they can sue the SEC or ESPN, or get a court order to garnish their ESPN payouts. Or get a court to prevent them from playing in the SEC until 2025.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31889044/texas-longhorns-oklahoma-sooners-tell-big-12-not-renew-grant-media-rights
Under Big 12 bylaws, they have to give the league 18 months’ notice that they’re leaving. The two schools signed agreements with the Big 12 in 2012 that granted their first- and second-tier media rights to the league through June 30, 2025, and the Big 12 would own their rights until the deal expires — even if they leave.
The league’s bylaws state that departing schools agree to forfeit two years’ of media distributions, which might be as much as $75 million for each.
Now if the wording of the bylaws mean they can net more money over the 4 years by collecting some penalties while letting them leave early, that’s different. But that isn’t my understanding unless UT and OU leave just 1 year early (penalty is 2 years worth of distributions).
LikeLike
@Brian –
That assumes they have any grounds for such a lawsuit.
It does. Like I mentioned before, I will be shocked if UT/OU willingly put themselves in such a disadvantageous position vs the remaining eight. They had to know how all the other parties would react. If I didn’t think I could get out early with relatively favorable terms, I wouldn’t have made this move until 2023/2024. As it stands, the remaining eight have no incentive to give any ground.
Feel free to point out what that maneuver would be and why the others wouldn’t fight it. Until someone points it out or UT/OU file said suit, I am not aware of what this strategy would be.
Neither do I. I just expect them to try something.
Maybe they’re waiting for the others to do something actionable out of anger in order to have grounds to get out.
That’s possible. Again pretty risky to put all your hopes on that.
Until someone shows me legal leverage, I don’t believe they have any.
They may not, If I were a UT/OU fan I’d hope they do. Otherwise, the remaining eight have no incentive to do anything other collect checks for the next four years. That’s why I think they have something planned. If they don’t then I’d have to ask why they would put themselves in such terrible position with no leverage.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t see much disadvantage for them. If they stay all 4 years, I don’t think they don’t face any penalties. It’s just dealing with being hated, but they should be used to that by now. If they waited much longer, the B12 would be starting negotiations on their new TV deals. As soon as they refused to renew the GoR everyone would know what was up anyway. And I think you are dismissing the importance of doing this while the state governments couldn’t intervene. By 2023 they’d be back in session.
LikeLike
Little8,
The remaining 8 will be greatly diminished in 2025 no matter what. They’ll be lucky to make $20M per year, their recruiting will be hurt, their ticket sales will decline, and their fan interest will drop.
“They have the most leverage now and should not only be negotiating with UT/OU, but more importantly with ESPN and FOX to secure what they can going forward.”
How can that help them? No network is going to pay them more out of sympathy, and negotiating with UT and OU can only cost them money. Where’s the upside?
“ESPN has half of the best B12 football games (round robin selection from the top so ESPN/FOX split the good games and FOX gets all the bad games)”
ESPN will have all of them soon. That what started all this. Neither ESPN nor Fox want to show any of the remaining games, really.
“and all of B12 basketball.”
Hoops is cheap and ESPN will keep paying for it at market rate (which again dropped with UT and OU leaving).
“The B12 needs to determine now what they can get sans UT/OU for the 2022-24 seasons,”
They can get what they’re owed, or they can settle for less. The choice seems pretty obvious.
“and going forward after the 2024 football season.”
Nobody wants to offer them a new deal until they know who will be in the B12. And then they will offer a lot less than the B12 was getting. Negotiating now won’t improve that.
“It does not matter what the B1G, PAC, or SEC negotiates in TV rights.”
It kind of does, because they could take up all the good TV windows. And the networks would rather know what they need to pay the B10 and P12 and what concessions they have to make before they make a deal with the B12.
“The B12 will be able to get a better deal from ESPN during the next year than they will be able to get in the next 5-10 years.”
Only if ESPN bribes them to release UT and OU early, and that might risk a lawsuit. ESPN has to be very careful since they are benefitting from a contract being broken.
“The B12 schools also have leverage to strike valuable OoC deals with OU and UT now that will not be available if this is dragged out.”
UT cut off TAMU, they certainly aren’t worried about not playing the others. My guess is that UT will still want some OOC games in TX, but mostly at home so buy games or 2 for 1s. Teams like SMU and UH might get the games rather than B12 schools who want home and homes. UT would be more likely to play them if the SEC sticks with 8 games.
OU has already said they want to keep playing OkSU in every sport, so there’s no leverage there.
LikeLike
I did not say the B12 should accept a bad deal. I think it will take both the networks and OU/UT to make an early out to the SEC worthwhile for the B12.
If the B12 negotiates with ESPN they can determine if there is any money for allowing the SEC move quicker in a rights deal past 2025. If there is no money, as you expect, than there will be no deal… but how will the B12 know if they do not ask? ESPN may be willing to pay a premium now just to get inventory ahead of B1G and PAC renegotiations. ESPN can always sell it on to other networks (they currently have that right with their B12 inventory), and I am sure the B12 will be more flexible with Thursday / Friday nights to keep the payout higher. There are lots of business reasons where ESPN might “overpay” for these rights, and since they will still be paying less than they did 10 years ago it will be very difficult proving this was not for valid business reasons. .
Everybody at OU is happy to continue to play OkSt now. That will not be the case if OkSt delays the move to the SEC for 3 years. The OU fans will be ready to ditch Bedlam at that point. OU is also saying they will stay in the B12 through June 2025, and everyone knows that OU does not want to do that. So OU statements about continuing to play OkSt should be taken with a grain of salt.
LikeLike
Little8,
“I think it will take both the networks and OU/UT to make an early out to the SEC worthwhile for the B12.”
I don’t see why Fox would pay extra to help them leave early. Fox loses the rights to UT and OU games as soon as they leave, and has to keep paying the rest of the B12. ESPN already has some B12 rights, so why pay more now? They still have to air some B12 games and pay the B12 for them. And I can’t think of any reason the SEC would help pay, so that just leaves UT and OU.
“If the B12 negotiates with ESPN they can determine if there is any money for allowing the SEC move quicker in a rights deal past 2025. If there is no money, as you expect, than there will be no deal… but how will the B12 know if they do not ask?”
I’m not saying they shouldn’t talk, just that they shouldn’t automatically negotiate and take the best deal they can get no matter what.
“ESPN may be willing to pay a premium now just to get inventory ahead of B1G and PAC renegotiations.”
ESPN has plenty of inventory, and generally B10 inventory is better for them than the B12 sans UT and OU. The B10 costs more but brings them more viewers and thus ad revenue.
“ESPN can always sell it on to other networks (they currently have that right with their B12 inventory),”
I think the remaining 8 will be leery of deals that would allow ESPN to sell it on. They don’t want their games dumped on a crap network.
“and I am sure the B12 will be more flexible with Thursday / Friday nights to keep the payout higher.”
Every conference hates them and the ratings aren’t great. And HS football in TX is sacrosanct. But I agree that the B12 will be more flexible on this going forward to earn more.
“There are lots of business reasons where ESPN might “overpay” for these rights, and since they will still be paying less than they did 10 years ago it will be very difficult proving this was not for valid business reasons.”
Just continuing to pay the current rate is vastly overpaying if UT and OU are gone. And it won’t be paying less if they are keeping UT and OU whole.
“Everybody at OU is happy to continue to play OkSt now. That will not be the case if OkSt delays the move to the SEC for 3 years.”
Can they blame 1 school when it takes all 7 to agree? The 8 can easily make sure non-TX or OK schools make the public pushback.
“The OU fans will be ready to ditch Bedlam at that point. OU is also saying they will stay in the B12 through June 2025, and everyone knows that OU does not want to do that. So OU statements about continuing to play OkSt should be taken with a grain of salt.”
The state government may force it on them like other states have (Iowa, for example). But the president and AD both said they want to keep playing in all sports which will be hard to walk back.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 refuses to negotiate, Texas and OU could just leave in 2022 and the Big 12 would just have held one year’s distributions and have to fight in court on enforcing the GOR and the 2nd year’s distributions. They will lose on that 2nd year’s distributions based on the Maryland case. So if they play hardball, they could lose almost everything. And they will be creating bad will in the Texas and Oklahoma legislatures and with ESPN. They’ve got everything to lose.
Now if they win, maybe they get nothing but the right to show SEC games and get paid at the Big 12 rights’ fees, along with the 2 year’s distributions. And they create a lot of bad will with Texas, OU, ESPN and the SEC.
There’s too much risk for both sides not to negotiate.
LikeLike
bullet,
“If the Big 12 refuses to negotiate, Texas and OU could just leave in 2022”
Yes, but their TV rights stay unless they win the case. That’s a huge gamble on their part.
“and the Big 12 would just have held one year’s distributions and have to fight in court on enforcing the GOR and the 2nd year’s distributions. They will lose on that 2nd year’s distributions based on the Maryland case.”
I can’t speak to whether they are likely to win or lose. I’ll let the lawyers debate that. But they wouldn’t have created a 2-year rule if they didn’t think it could hold up.
ESPN still has to work with the B12 too, so they may not want to be caught in the middle.
“So if they play hardball, they could lose almost everything.”
So could OU and UT, and the B12 knows they’re going to lose everything in 2025 anyway. they desperately need every single penny they can get from the two, not pennies on the dollar.
“And they will be creating bad will in the Texas and Oklahoma legislatures and with ESPN.”
That ship has sailed. There is already bad blood all around. The B12 publicly blamed ESPN. The non-UT/OU legislators are already mad.
“They’ve got everything to lose.”
Both sides do.
“Now if they win, maybe they get nothing but the right to show SEC games and get paid at the Big 12 rights’ fees, along with the 2 year’s distributions. And they create a lot of bad will with Texas, OU, ESPN and the SEC.”
I think they’d happily burn Austin and Norman to the ground right now. UT and OU will have to deal with years/decades of bad blood no matter what.
“There’s too much risk for both sides not to negotiate.”
Feel free to tell me what UT and OU are willing to give. Pay more than the rules say? Stay longer? Promise multiple OOC games for years? No, by “negotiate” everyone means the B12 should sacrifice to make life easier for UT and OU. Screw that. Make it miserable for them. They just ruined the futures of the rest of the B12.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Are there more UT legislators than from aTm, TT, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Rice, etc combined?
The B12 remaining schools have “everything to lose.” ?They already have lost everything over the next decades except for being left behind for the least amount of time. They can see their future by just looking around the state at earlier examples.
LikeLike
If mentioned before I apologize. I live in the East so don’t really know the answer. With the talk of Time Zones my sense is the people on the West Coast are used to odd start times. I’m thinking NFL, MNF, World Series, Masters etc. Perhaps College Football is different. Thoughts?
LikeLike
When did you ever see a Dodgers or Giants home game start at 9am (or for that matter Raiders, 49s, Chargers, etc.)? When the NFL teams have a road game on the east coast it may be televised at 10am in California, but all of the local games start at 1pm (4pm EST) in the late Sunday window. Where it shifts is for the night games since they start at the same time. so 5pm local to keep the 8pm ET start. So the problem is keeping local support if the teams demonstrate they do not care by starting home games at 9am. Not very good for tailgating, etc. College football is already a hard sell in California. Early starts will probably sink it.
FYI: One of Oklahoma’s big complaints was almost all starts were at 11am.
LikeLike
Little8,
Yes, the NFL is different. They have no competition and they show regional games. CFB is dealing with 5 major conferences that all demand national games. There aren’t enough prime windows for that, so the P12/B12/ACC have lost out. Back when there were regional broadcasts more games started at good times for their fans.
“So the problem is keeping local support if the teams demonstrate they do not care by starting home games at 9am. Not very good for tailgating, etc. College football is already a hard sell in California. Early starts will probably sink it.”
It’s a tough choice for the networks. The B10 and SEC outdraw the P12 at 3:30 and 8 (ET), so that only leaves the noon window and the late night games. They know P12 fans don’t want 9am PT starts, but the networks want to maximize their revenue.
“FYI: One of Oklahoma’s big complaints was almost all starts were at 11am.”
Fox has recently started putting big national games at noon ET all season long (not just OSU-UM which has always been an early game). For the B12, that means OU games (cuz UT has stunk) and especially OU-UT. OU’s problem is that nobody nationally cares about their B12 opponents, so they are stuck with the weaker ratings just like the P12. They’ll get the later starts in the SEC.
LikeLike
Oklahoma’s ratings were fine. For example, Bedlam (vs. Oklahoma St.) had triple the ratings of the Pac 12 and ACC games on at the same time. Their Texas Tech game a couple weeks earlier beat Alabama/Miss. St. head to head.
LikeLike
bullet,
That’s my point. OU’s ratings were fine and nobody else’s were in the B12, so Fox kept putting the OU games into that slot.
LikeLike
Doug,
I think the problem is partially generational. Those old enough to remember the 80s and earlier remember start times that weren’t dictated by TV and were convenient locally. CFB was tied to walking around campus, nostalgia, and being hit up for more donations by the school. As you start messing with game times, you create a disconnect for those fans and stop the positive emotional tie they have with CFB games. Those older fans are also the big donors, so colleges need to listen to them to some extent. But TV sells out for the younger viewers, so they keep pushing games into prime time.
In the old days, B10 games started at 1:30pm for the most part. Then TV came in and split that into 12 and 3:30, with the later games requiring portable lights as the season progressed. Eventually night games and even weeknight games became more frequent. Younger fans like drinking all day and then attending, and don’t mind staying up until midnight to watch a game end. TV is splitting the fan base, and it won’t end well.
So the older western fans are used to standard start times, but that’s gone now. Slowly TV has forced weirder and weirder times on them in order to justify paying them more. But at some point the P12 doesn’t want to be the oddball filling in windows nobody else will/can fill. Friday night games suck, but imagine them out west when they start at 5pm PT so the whole country can watch. Many of the P12 schools are located in major cities, so imagine driving through Friday afternoon rush hour in LA, SF, Phoenix or Seattle to get to a game. And since most P12 fans live in a metro area, they still have to drive through that traffic to get home to watch it no matter where it is played. On the other hand they have the remote schools (OrSU, WSU) where people have to take a day off work to go to the game.
They get 9am starts that annoy younger fans and that do make tailgating nearly impossible. They also require most fans to spend the night to attend the game. So do the Saturday night games, especially at the remote schools. But the P12 doesn’t draw big enough ratings for Fox or ESPN/ABC to show them instead of the SEC or B10 very often in the prime TV windows.
I don’t think CFB is different, I just think they can’t do anything about it because they don’t care as much as the south and midwest about CFB. They can’t get the good times, and the bad times limit the ratings they can get so they stay stuck in the cycle. Their only other choice is to take a lot less money and demand better times.
LikeLike
Those old enough to remember the 80s and earlier remember start times that weren’t dictated by TV and were convenient locally.
Until 1984, the NCAA controlled all of the TV rights and rationed them aggressively. Nothing was on cable. The University of Oklahoma fought the NCAA up to the Supreme Court, and won.
I doubt there are many of us who would prefer the days when your team could be on TV no more than 2–3 times a year. But of course, once every game was televised, they could not start at noon local time. There are not enough TV networks for that.
LikeLike
And it took time for TV coverage to expand. And almost all non-TV games started at 1:30 or 2 pm. And what they could return to is regional coverage to give better start times.
OSU games on TV (includes crappy coverage like ESPN+, Raycom, Jefferson Pilot, SV, etc.):
1984 – 6 (3 on SV, so essentially not covered)
1985 – 5
1986 – 7
1987 – 6
1988 – 7
1989 – 5
1990 – 7
1991 – 8
1992 – 9
1993 – 8
1994 – 9
1995 – all 11
1996 – 11
1997 – 9
1998 – 11
1999 – 11
2000 – 11
2001 – 10 (I think this is the last game not televised)
Bowls are not included.
LikeLike
Brian, that’s the value of the Big Ten Network. It makes money on games that previously had no value. Actually, it helps the Purdues and Indianas more than the Ohio States. Most of the OSU games were televised anyway. Now every B1G is on the air and makes money.
LikeLike
Brian;
“… have the remote schools (OrSU, WSU)…”
Your point is sound, especially for fans that travel, but geographically OrSt is <40 miles north of UOr and <90 miles south of Portland. Both fan bases do have significant numbers that need to travel and the Pac at night games (7:30-8:15 start local) can make for very late (or early Sunday morning) arriving home even if from Portland.
LikeLike
Now WSU… George Raveling once said it wasn’t the end of the world, but you could see it from there.
LikeLike
UO isn’t in a major city either, so I could’ve included it. Both are a healthy drive from Portland, especially at rush hour, but WSU is the most remote by far. I suppose UO is similar to UA.
Meanwhile UW, Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, ASU, CU and UU all have major city traffic concerns. And all colleges have dispersed fan/alumni bases that have long trips to get to the school. Friday night games are not good.
LikeLike
Doug’s makes a good point. There is a growing disconnect between the emotional attachment to the football game day experience in person vs. the time slots available for live national TV viewing. Networks want the visuals of an exciting live event (e.g., Penn State whiteout), but want them to fit into tidy programming slots. Not sure it works like that for attendees or viewers with an increasing list of entertainment options.
The big question for the conferences is what will the impact of new technologies, streaming, on-demand options, etc. be to the upcoming payouts? Will the programming choices morph to what presents the best visual experience (i.e., full stadiums, marching bands, traditions, etc.) or continue to move to expanded times available (e.g., Thu night, Fri night, early Sat morning) even if that means reduced attendance and lesser “visual appeal”?
LikeLike
Bob – I can certainly see in their next TV rights deal, the PAC playing several games on Friday nights (8p Eastern). Right time, wrong day.
It will also be interesting to see what windows Disney/ABC/ESPN has available to sell to the B1G and the PAC. My understanding is that the SEC has been promised the 3:30p window and at least half of the primetime games on ABC. When the SEC isn’t on in primetime on ABC, its safe to assume that the SEC will get the primetime ESPN window.
Would it even be worth it for the B1G to sign a deal with Disney for 3-4 primetime ABC games and a bunch of ESPN & ESPN2 games? I think FOX might be willing to overpay for B1G exclusivity to build up FS1.
Will the ABC noon window be reserved for the ACC?
Assuming the B1G partnership continues with FOX, would FOX allow the B1G to even play in the noon ABC window and compete against their #1 game?
With the NFL’s TNF going to Amazon exclusively in 2023, is Thursday night college football going to be more attractive and merit a PAC or B12-2-2+2-2 game, like the old Big East Thursdays?
LikeLike
Big 12 –+- has to evaluate the cost to attendance of that Thursday time slot. Those schools draw better on average than the Pac 12 schools even without Texas and Oklahoma. Pac 12 has more empty seats.
One of the big negatives when ESPN refused to renew the Big 12 early was that they might get more Big 10 content, limiting the time slots they could bid on. Pac 12 or Big 12 could only be getting serious interest from Fox, lowering their potential payout.
LikeLike
Would it even be worth it for the B1G to sign a deal with Disney for 3-4 primetime ABC games and a bunch of ESPN & ESPN2 games?
Yes, for a few reasons. ESPN is the worldwide leader, like it or not. Nobody wants to be entirely off ESPN. Plus, even if they carrying a reduced set of games, it makes competition for Fox. That’s certainly better than if Fox thinks they have no competitor.
Even when CBS had the main SEC package, there were still SEC games on ESPN.
LikeLike
Alan,
This ties into my comments above. The B10 has to deal with ABC because of the hegemony that is ESPN’s CFB coverage. They can’t afford not to be on their networks or ESPN will never say a word about them except to denigrate them while touting ESPN’s properties (SEC, ACC).
LikeLike
Bob,
TV money will win out, but technology may be a big part of it. Who needs to sell tickets when CGI can put “fans” in the stands and they can use AI to produce the correct crowd noise based on the situation? They worked on this during COVID and in a few years it may become commonplace.
LikeLike
The question that I always come back to with the ACC is who leaves first; it just seems a lot more stable than say the Pac-12 because there’s no singular school that you can pull and the whole house collapses (see Texas and the Big 12).
With the Pac-12 we know the whole thing revolves around USC (with UCLA in tow); if USC wants to make it work in some fashion, then the Pac-12 will stay intact. USC is the Texas of the Pac-12. If they go, they’re probably taking UCLA/Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-4 others with them. Washington/Oregon need to be with USC/UCLA to hit the LA market; there’s just no staying in the Pac-12 without those 2; just like Oklahoma needs to be with Texas to keep its recruiting in that state.
With the ACC, it’s not at all clear who would be able to leave first; UNC isn’t Texas or USC, the football brand power of the ACC is with FSU/Clemson/Miami; Florida is their largest market though NC/VA are the heart of their footprint. Of course, UNC/UVA would have automatic homes in the Big Ten and SEC most likely, but neither of them is a first mover.
FSU/Clemson are arguably the most likely first movers…, but who’s taking them. The SEC doesn’t need them if they’re the only conference at 16+ and already way ahead of everyone else in $ and playoff spots, and there’s an argument for schools like Alabama/Auburn/Florida/Georgia/South Carolina not wanting to take what could be a prominent neighbor in their backyards if you give FSU and Clemson the SEC branding.
It’s not clear at all that the Big Ten would take either as well due to neither being AAU.
So then who moves first? Maryland was a really unique situation where they had huge long-term budget issues and Loh was Iowa’s Provost before he went to Maryland and Kirwan was Ohio State’s president before his post in the Maryland system, so it was a natural fit for them to move Maryland to a conference that they knew where the money was significantly larger and where they were a perfect institutional fit.
Ironically, if nobody bolts first, then the schools that the Big Ten and SEC really want (UNC/UVA) don’t have to go anywhere.
Even if they get less money over the long-term, it’s just FSU and Clemson that are making the biggest deal about that.
LikeLike
The question that I always come back to with the ACC is who leaves first; it just seems a lot more stable than say the Pac-12 because there’s no singular school that you can pull and the whole house collapses (see Texas and the Big 12).
I think this is valid. I mean…even if the Big Ten takes UVA/UNC in the 2030s, what’s left is still a credible major conference. Clemson is their only perennial football power right now, but the Tigers were not always that good; they could revert to their historical mean. When the ACC added Miami in 2004, they looked forward to years of FSU–Miami ACC championship games, but it simply hasn’t happened.
USC is the Texas of the Pac-12. If they go, they’re probably taking UCLA/Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-4 others with them.
This is why USC is not the Texas of the Pac-12. Texas could leave with just one partner; USC cannot. Texas also had multiple credible destinations; USC does not.
The need to convince so many schools to leave the Pac-12 simultaneously — and to persuade the Big Ten to make such a deal — puts USC in a weaker position.
A deal like you’re talking about might be a good idea (I remain open-minded about that), but it has pretty clear downsides and challenges that Texas and the SEC didn’t need to worry about.
LikeLike
@Marc – Right – USC can’t be a “lone wolf” if it were to hypothetically leave the Pac-12. It’s almost difficult to see them happy to go to the Big Ten without bringing so many other Western schools that it would effectively need to be a full (or close to full) merger between the B1G and Pac-12 to make it work. It’s a good point about Texas only needing to leave with Oklahoma. Also, even though UT isn’t quite the classic SEC culture fit, they can still be integrated pretty well with existing members like Texas A&M and Arkansas (plus bringing in their other main rival of OU). Texas is NOT going to be on an island by itself when it joins the SEC. In contrast, regardless of money, it’s hard for me to contemplate a school like USC simply being on an island or even they come along with UCLA – the Trojans are already in their perfect cultural fit within the Pac-12.
I’d push back on the notion that the ACC has more depth compared to the Pac-12 – I think they’re basically on the same tier. Even if USC and the next 3 most valuable schools in the Pac-12 were to leave (take your pick), the league would still have multiple schools that would be flagships, AAU members and/or directly located in major media markets. This isn’t like the Big 12 being left with the most valuable school for conference realignment purposes being Kansas (and that’s *entirely* based on being a basketball blue blood and despite being a net negative for football). That’s why I never bought the Big 12 pipedream from a few years ago of adding Pac-12 schools like Arizona and Arizona State – we see the lack of depth issue in the Big 12 very clearly now where UT and OU were propping up the entire conference almost entirely on their own.
As I’ve said elsewhere, the Pac-12 issue to me is that they have done a poor job of maximizing the value of their assets as opposed not actually having assets. I think there are 10 Pac-12 schools (the 9 AAU members plus Arizona State) that the Big Ten would gladly take right away and probably would value them all higher than Kansas. That shows that there’s a lot of value there when you look under the hood.
LikeLike
I think you are greatly overvaluing the P12 schools. If they lost their top 4 brands (USC, UW, UO & UCLA), they’d be just above the MWC. Nobody cares about Cal and Stanford, so don’t spin the SF market. That would be all 3 pacific coast states effectively lost with just the newer members (UA, ASU, CU, UU) plus the least valuable Pac-8 members. That’s a much smaller base of fans.
There is zero evidence the B10 has any interest in any of the P12 schools, let alone 10 of them. If you could swap the map so the P12 and B12 changed relative locations, then I’d buy the B10 being interested. But in reality, geography matters.
LikeLike
@Brian – Agree to disagree there. I think all of the Pac-12 schools besides maybe Washington State and Oregon State have a ton of conference realignment value. I mean, the Big Ten added Rutgers on the theory that it could deliver the NYC market (and it actually did for BTN purposes, which surprised even me). I’m not saying that it would be a good football move, but if the Big Ten thought it was a good idea to add Rutgers, there’s absolutely no way that they wouldn’t add Stanford and Cal. That would honestly be the biggest Big Ten university president dream expansion ever.
Granted, I agree that there’s no evidence of Big Ten interest because I don’t think there’s any serious thought of the Big Ten raiding the Pac-12. Believe me – I’ll be the first to say that any suggestion that the Big Ten is going to go and take USC and a bunch of other Pac-12 schools is bonkers. I’m just saying that, in a vacuum, there’s a whole host of Pac-12 schools that all fit the “think like a university president” mantra for the Big Ten, which is a big reason why the two leagues have long been so culturally and institutionally aligned with each other.
LikeLike
Frank,
“Agree to disagree there.”
Okay.
“I mean, the Big Ten added Rutgers on the theory that it could deliver the NYC market (and it actually did for BTN purposes, which surprised even me).”
It did, back when that mattered. Meanwhile we have proof that the P12 schools don’t bring their markets in the same way because the P12N can’t get distribution and the P12’s TV ratings stink.
“I’m not saying that it would be a good football move, but if the Big Ten thought it was a good idea to add Rutgers, there’s absolutely no way that they wouldn’t add Stanford and Cal.”
Disagree. PSU wanted/needed eastern rivals and the B10 wanted markets for BTN and the B10 wanted better demographics for future students. RU and UMD provided that. The B10 plays a few OOC games out west plus the Rose Bowl, but the presidents understand that USC and company are over 1000 miles from the nearest B10 school and 2-3 time zones off from most schools. They don’t want to send 30 sports out west repeatedly in a time where money is vital.
The B10 schools do not have the numbers of alumni and fans out west to support such a move. You talk about cultural fits, but the pacific culture is very different from the midwest.
“That would honestly be the biggest Big Ten university president dream expansion ever.”
For the BTAA sure, but you don’t need to be in the same conference to do research together.
It’s not a dream for athletics. Show me the money. How does it not cost the B10 money per school to add P12 schools? If you add Stanford and Cal, how many households add BTN? NYC and other eastern markets were tough fights with a lot of passionate B10 alumni and fans living there. How many people watch Cal vs Purdue, in CA or anywhere except IN?
LikeLike
Ironically, if nobody bolts first, then the schools that the Big Ten and SEC really want (UNC/UVA) don’t have to go anywhere.
Texas and Oklahoma didn’t have to go anywhere either. They followed the money. UNC/UVA are likewise leaving big bucks on the table if they turn down (or fail to pursue) the Big Ten.
The difference is that UNC/UVA have strong, multi-decade ties to the ACC. Texas and Oklahoma both blew up their previous conferences 25 years ago to create a made-for-TV conference, and four of the original 12 are already gone.
LikeLike
“ Texas and Oklahoma didn’t have to go anywhere either. ”
This is why there is a fairly visceral reaction. Would anybody begrudge a school not to the top half of athletic department revenue looking at an improved situation? UT only fields 18 athletic teams, a couple more than ISU. $200+ mil AD budget.
UMich has about 30 sports teams, Stanford about 34, and tOSU 36-38.
But UT “had” to move on for more money?
LikeLike
Texas destroyed the Southwest Conference for more grandeur and exposure, then they destroyed the original Big XII to establish the DeLoss Dodds Dumbass Debacle Longhorn Network. Now, a decade later, the Horns are going to just walk away from the failed Longhorn Network and further torpedo the remnants of the Big XII to join the SEC. With regard to compassion to others, they are like zombies.
LikeLike
Texas destroyed the Southwest Conference for more grandeur and exposure
Did Texas destroy the SWC, or did Arkansas and SMU?
Now, a decade later, the Horns are going to just walk away from the failed Longhorn Network and further torpedo the remnants of the Big XII to join the SEC.
Where, for the first time ever, they won’t be able to push people around.
LikeLike
Marc,
They all had dirty hands in the SWC. The cheating was rampant everywhere. SMU paid the ultimate price, but all of them kept escalating the game until it reached that point.
I don’t think any 1 school deserves the blame for the SWC folding. There were too many TX schools from the start – once the TV money ramped up it was a bad plan.
LikeLike
More about recruiting and NIL and pay for play than money. Read someone claim the boosters were really upset when two brothers went to Alabama (one top 10, the other top 50 in Texas). Their brother plays for Texas. Their dad was an All-American at Texas. Their mom was a Texas cheerleader.
Money matters, but that is not the sole driver. Texas would have left the SWC long before they did if that was all that mattered.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s also another factor there; just the UNC/UVA ties to the conference and the same group for decades.
A lot more different from Texas leaving a stitched together “made for TV” conference.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/polls/coaches-poll/2021-2022/2021-08-10/
The Coaches poll is out. The SEC has 6 teams, 8 if you count UT and OU. I wonder how the voting would differ (if at all) if OU and UT were in the SEC right now.
It’s mostly the usual suspects up top (AL, Clemson, OU, OSU), but:
8. ISU
9. UNC
10. UC
SEC – 6
B10 – 5
B12 – 4
ACC, P12 – 3
Other – 4
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/08/10/college-football-notre-dame-overrated-preseason-coaches-poll/5540064001/
Most overrated teams in the poll:
7. ND
14. USC
16. Miami
19. Texas
25. Ole Miss
Shocking – 3 classic “they’re back” brands, 1 usually overrated ND, and insert random overrated SEC team.
#12 UO, #13 LSU and #15 WI all finished unranked last year. Meanwhile 2 1-loss G5 teams only rank #23 (ULL) and #24 (CC).
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2021/08/10/valparaiso-university-changes-nickname-beacons-crusaders/5553992001/
Valpo has officially rebranded as the Beacons.
The school’s previous nickname, the Crusaders, was dropped in February. The Beacon also has been the name of the university’s yearbook for the past eight decades.
More than 1,000 suggestions for a new nickname were submitted.
“Our new nickname directly connects to the University’s motto, ‘In Thy Light We See Light,’ and represents the Valparaiso University community in many ways,” university president José D. Padilla said. “We are beacons of light and hope in our communities. We are beacons of change on campus, in our region and in our country. We are beacons of knowledge for our students’ academic, social and spiritual growth.
“Above all, we are beacons of God’s light around the world. We light the way for our students, so that once they graduate, they shine their light for others. We are all Beacons at Valparaiso University.”
LikeLike
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nbc-draws-its-lowest-summer-olympics-ratings-ever-for-tokyo-games-11628547501
Ratings for the Olympics were down 42% compared to Rio. While NBC still claims the games “will be very, very profitable” for the company, the network was forced to offer “make-goods” to advertisers (“make-goods” are free ad space to advertisers that are triggered when TV broadcasts fail meet minimum ratings targets).
While the pandemic and general audience fragmentation are likely major culprits, this news raises serious questions about the continued viability of NBC’s Olympic broadcast model of spreading its coverage across 2 broadcast networks, 4 cable channels, 3 streaming services and online given the increasing amount of cord cutting.
LikeLike
I should add that it doesn’t help that NBC did a terrible job of making clear which events would be broadcast on which channel and that no individual channel (including The Peacock streaming service) had all the coverage in one place.
LikeLike
frug,
The time zone issue was a major problem. It was when the games were held in Beijing, too. Of course Rio game would do better in the US. They can’t time all the events to best suit the US market – the host country audience is the first group to please. Thus NBC has to choose between their horrible tape delayed coverage with incessant sappy personal stories and about 5 minutes per hour of actual competition, or live coverage on a ridiculous number of channels and low odds that the audience can actually find the events they wanted to watch anyway.
LikeLike
@Brian – Agreed – the time zone issue was definitely a major problem and it’s exacerbated in today’s world when everyone has instant access to information. The story of Simone Biles dropping out is a perfect example where it happened early morning in the US but it wouldn’t be shown in prime time until over 12 hours later.
Note that NBC specifically pushed the Olympics organizers to have the swimming finals held in the morning Tokyo time so that they could show at least those events live in prime time in the US. They did this in Beijing, too. So, the swimming every night during the first week of the Games at around 8:30 pm CT was consistent and I always knew when that was happening. It was pretty much everything else that was a hodgepodge and hard to keep track of broadcast-wise. Outside of swimming, the marquee events of the Olympics are gymnastics and the top track events and all of those weren’t live in prime time.
LikeLike
It also didn’t help that many US favorites disappointed in various ways (Biles, W soccer, MBB at first, M T&F, etc.).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/olympics-medal-count/
The US won 16 fewer medals than projected (129) and barely beat China for the most gold medals. Ratings probably go up if the US performs better.
LikeLike
What’s so frustrating is that NBC got the IOC to invert the swim scheduling… and NBC still screwed it up. They showed an interview with Calaeb Dressel instead of one of the W. 200 butterfly semi-finals even though the race had 2 Americans in it (who by the way went on to take silver and bronze in the event) and they kept running commercials during the distance races even though they were not that long (seriously NBC can’t go 8 minutes without a commercial break?).
LikeLike
The “ incessant sappy personal stories and about 5 minutes per hour of actual competition” are just as much a feature when the games are in the Western Hemisphere.
LikeLike
Yes, but with more live coverage of events. If you already know who won, the price you’re willing to pay in terms of NBC’s shitty coverage goes down.
LikeLike
The sappy personal stories go back to when ABC had the Olympics, and that was decades ago.
The Olympics attract a lot of viewers who aren’t sports fans in the usual sense. I mean, they don’t show the sappy stuff due to a lack of sports that they could cover. It’s because their studies show that viewers are attracted to that material.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing – they have covered it that way for so long they don’t actually know if that is still what people want. There’s no real alternative. Maybe attitudes have changed over the past 50 years. Women used to not watch sports nearly as much as men, but now they are a large part of the NFL fan base. The sappy stories were put in to attract female viewers, but maybe that’s not the right approach now..
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/sports/olympics/NBC_wont_broadcast_Rio_Olympics_opening_ceremonies_live.html
John Miller, NBC Olympics chief marketing officer
…
“… In the case of the Olympics, it’s not about the result, it’s about the journey.
The people who watch the Olympics are not particularly sports fans. More women watch the Games than men, and for the women, they’re less interested in the result and more interested in the journey. It’s sort of like the ultimate reality show and mini-series wrapped into one. And to tell the truth, it has been the complaint of a few sports writers. It has not been the complaint of the vast viewing public.
—
[Aside: You might disagree with that. I might disagree with that. NBC has said it for years, and has long claimed to have stacks of market research to prove it.]
To counter that opinion:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-nbc-marketing-big-insults-women-olympics-viewers-article-1.2741209
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s watching sports in real time. Hell, I’m a woman so, really, I don’t want to watch anything in real time. War? Call me a half-hour in. Presidential elections? Wake me when they get to the good parts.
Since we women aren’t sports fans and only like the Olympics because it’s like a reality show minus the boob jobs, facelifts and prosthetic leg tossing, we never care that there are hours-long tape delays, or that events are long over and winners are already walking around with their medals.
…
If Miller’s pandering, condescending view of the millions of women viewers isn’t horrible enough …
Come on! Who still spews sexist nonsense like that? NBC sexist creeps who revel in the worst of women, that’s who. Maybe that’s why NBC Universal owns Bravo with its repulsive “Real Housewives” franchise, which celebrates and encourages the worst of women to be the worst they can be.
Then there’s the issue of NBC’s much-criticized decision to tape delay events starting with the one hour delay of the five-hour long, commercial-packed opening ceremony.
Maybe it was because they know how much we women love color and fancy dancing. Perhaps they just wanted to make sure we were finished with our housekeeping chores.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/by-packaging-the-olympics-nbc-insults-viewers-and-the-athletes-themselves/2016/08/06/a8eda1fe-5b3f-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html
Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post admitted that NBC had often been successful with its “packaging” of the Olympics, and that it was “not inherently sexist for them to say that women have some different viewing habits and interests than men”. At the same time, she argued that it was “insulting” for NBC to cater its tape-delayed broadcasts towards a “Ladies’ Home Journal crowd”, as it alienates conventional sports fans, and harmed the ability to grow a year-round audience for both women’s sports and Olympic sports.
—
Does NBC really have current data showing that modern viewers prefer it this way? Are they really trying to find out what maximizes their coverage, or are they doing what they’ve always done and assuming that is the best plan?
LikeLike
It’d be broadcasting malpractice to spend that much money on rights, and then not gather any data about what coverage attract the most viewers. Could they be relying on old data? I suppose it’s possible.
LikeLike
I read recently-retired Disney CEO Bob Iger’s book a few months ago and it was interesting to see how he rose up the ranks. The main place where he broke through was at ABC Sports and how he mentored by Roone Arledge (the legendary sports producer that was the brains behind the creation of Monday Night Football and much of ABC Sports for several decades). Iger mentioned how Arledge’s favorite job was producing the Olympics on ABC and that Roone was the one that changed the focus from just broadcasting the event and creating stories around each of the athletes. To paraphrase, that’s the way that you get viewers to care about a bobsled team member that they’ve never heard of before and won’t ever see again. So, NBC is essentially continuing what ABC started with Olympics coverage.
To me, I think today’s issue with the Olympics is simply that society is at the point where we watch things live or we watch them on-demand. The in-between scenario where NBC is trying to show tape-delayed coverage at a specific time is a dinosaur. They could have gotten away with it even 5 years ago in Rio since streaming of live events was still in its infancy, but it seems so anachronistic now.
Granted, I don’t know how this works for a broadcaster like NBC whenever the Olympics are held in a different time zone where little of it can be shown live in prime time in the US. NBC isn’t paying billions of dollars so that they can show the women’s gymnastics final at 5 am ET – their entire model is all about maximizing prime time revenue. To be sure, the next 2 Summer Olympics will be more favorable for US TV viewers in Paris and, of course, Los Angeles.
LikeLike
Marc,
The problem is that focus groups can only tell you so much in advance. You need to see what people actually do when the real Oympics happen. So if you keep doing what worked before, you can never find out if it’s optimum.
I’m not saying they’re leaving huge numbers of viewers on the table, because it would clearly be a trade off to some extent. But when you see women complaining about the sexist approach to the coverage, maybe it’s time to rethink it.
LikeLike
Seems like a couple day pre olympics show to wet people’s appetite and generate interest is where a lot of the “fluff” would accomplish the goal and free up time to show events.
LikeLike
Marc,
“ It’s because their studies show that viewers are attracted to that material.”
It’s also easier. You don’t have to react on the fly if you have a bunch of narratives ready to go and tweak them to fit the results. Eats a bunch of time they would otherwise spend learning about and showing less “popular” events not necessarily featuring U.S. competitors.
I wonder if a bunch of hardcore sports fans watching the ice-capades would get NHL highlights included.
LikeLike
While I agree the time zone thing was a major issue, it is worth noting that the Tokyo ratings are down 22% from the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang which is downright shocking.
https://deadline.com/2021/08/tokyo-olympics-closing-ceremony-viewership-low-ratings-nbc-1234811865/
LikeLike
Most sports have been down lately. With the pandemic, I don’t think people got as energized for the Olympics as normal. I know it’s the first time I’ve ever watched less than an hour total.
And having Simone Biles not compete killed their chance for big gymnastics ratings. Likewise the losses by the women’s soccer team and poor early play by MBB. The US underperformed as I posted elsewhere, and that always hurts ratings.
NBC also should look in the mirror as the complaints about their coverage are myriad (too many channels, hard to find things, tape delay, too many commercials, etc.). Have they adjusted to a streaming, low attention span world?
LikeLike
But the USA wrestling was great, and the wrestling in general.
LikeLike
And we all know that wrestling is what drives TV ratings.
Do you think the NCAA will ever move D-I wrestling to international rules? The extra years focused on that style would improve our team, and almost all Olympic team members wrestled D-I so the lower divisions could stay folkstyle to match high school. Or maybe all levels should switch.
I think the shot clock rule is well intended but arbitrary. That still is better than stalling calls in D-I though. They really need a set of more objective rules for enforcing that.
LikeLike
Brian,
“ Do you think the NCAA will ever move D-I wrestling to international rules?”
No.
And I absolutely don’t want them to.
1: does the ncaa want to give governing authority regarding ncaa competition rules to outside authorities, let alone the international political mess that continually and dramatically changes them? Some of the changes over the last 20 years made the sport almost unrecognizable from one Olympic cycle to the next, and certainly the one following. Is the ncaa funded by the US Olympic committee?
2: we were a victory miss by Snyder, or the surprise loss from Dake (the reigning world champion) from winning the unofficial team title. Perhaps other nations should adopt folk style?
3:most elite kids who are college caliber have extensive freestyle experience from very young ages. The elite of those have multiple national and fairly often international experience. I only know a very few who didn’t, because they were exceptional multi sport athletes. The cross training in a number of cases not only didn’t hurt, but reduced the burnout risk.
LikeLike
I think to some extent the pandemic is breaking all sorts of habits, including TV viewing.
Also, I think the move of the media to 1) partisan propaganda outlets; and 2) Covid hysteria all the time all day; also hurt viewership. They can’t hype it on non-sports programs because viewership on this is down. I know I have pretty much tuned out any of the normal media outlets, so you don’t hear the hype as much about events such as the Olympics.
LikeLike
Like you, I prefer folkstyle. There are a few aspects of freestyle that are better, though. I like the push out earning you a point, especially if they won’t call stalling. And on the ground, the guy on top should be called for stalling if he doesn’t try to improve his position. This isn’t human rodeo.
I think the sport needs to rethink the lockups that happen on their feet. Two guys lean and pull on each other for minutes with nothing happening because they can stop each other’s shots. That’s Greco-Roman to me. Hands shouldn’t be allowed to lock in place on the opponent’s head/neck/arms for more than 3 seconds or so. Get a grab and use it or move on.
But I could see the NCAA trying to get more in line with international rules in many sports. Basketball and wrestling are the two obvious ones to me that we play differently. Even if they don’t get 100% in sync with international rules, they might implement some of the rules differences.
Snyder needs to face the fact that he’s second best at that weight. His lone win came when the Russian had just moved up in weight and was still adjusting. The guy only has that 1 loss in almost 10 years for a reason. Would Cox have done any better? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Brian’s link to the US underperforming its projected medal count reminded me of another recent Olympics related post from FiveThirtyEight.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/american-women-stole-the-show-in-tokyo/
It talks about how the US is now dependent on the performance of female athletes to maintain its in the medal count (60% of US Gold’s were won by female athletes in Tokyo) as the world as largely caught up to the US men.
Interestingly, while Title IX is never mentioned in the article, a chart in the article pretty clearly shows its effect. From 1920-1976 female athletes won, on average, about 20% of US medals every year +/- about 7%. However, since 1984 (the first generation to grow up with Title IX) the share of medals US women have won has been steadily growing.
LikeLike
*maintain its lead in
LikeLike
Yep. And you really see the effect in women’s soccer as the European club model has struggled to put sufficient resources into the women’s side. Just the opposite of the men’s game where the college model can’t compete.
Now if US schools would just stop training so many foreign athletes to win away the medals (I’m kidding). Just over half of the B10 athletes in the Olympics competed for team USA, for example. Title IX is actually building women’s sports worldwide (slowly). And all because of CFB and MBB TV money. Without that money to spend, all college sports would be weak.
LikeLike
That doesn’t tell the whole story because there were a lot fewer women’s events relative to men’s in the 1920s. While I think your connection to Title IX is correct, the method for demonstrating it is faulty.
LikeLike
Frank, any thoughts on a new Expansion Index? With the changes in TV viewing, streaming, etc. and the OT/OK move to SEC it would be great to take a fresh look at all of the “available” B1G candidates. Back in 2009 you scored TX, ND, SYR, NE, MO, PITT, RUT, IA St., WV, LOU, and CIN. I’d be curious what your 2021 index would look like for each of the current PAC12 and ACC schools. Personally, I don’t see any of them coming to the B1G alone. They are more valuable if they bring along some friends.
LikeLike
Bob,
It’d be pretty short.
#1 Notre Dame
Academics: 25
TV Value: 25
Football Brand Value: 30
Basketball Brand Value: 5
Historic Rivalries/Cultural Fit: 5
Mutual Interest: 1
Total: 91
#2 Nobody
There is nobody else who adds financial value to the B10, so they’d have to be added for other reasons (future demographics, etc.).
LikeLike
@Brian – I think that’s right for the Big Ten: it’s Notre Dame or nobody unless we start looking at Pac-12 schools (and I’m not ready to cross that bridge as being realistic despite the Twitter chatter).
A post about viable Big 12 candidates is likely forthcoming, though. There are quite a few directions that they can go. The only “backfill” Big 12 candidate that I feel fairly confident about getting invited in virtually any scenario is Cincinnati. After that, though, everyone else seems to bring some type of baggage or impediment: whether Baylor/TCU/Texas Tech really wants to support adding Houston, how BYU’s Honor Code may be an even bigger issue today compared to 5 years ago, should they go after UCF/USF in Florida or head west toward Boise State, backfill to 10 schools or expand up to 12, 14 or even 16, etc.
LikeLike
Long term (and assuming that the B12 survives), does the Big12 think that the PAC might explode and leave behind major schools like Colorado, Utah, or the Arizona schools? If so, does a move west create a bridge and the only new home for PAC refugees? Perhaps the remaining B12 schools and a few leftovers from the west could be viable.
If PAC 12 refugees are not viable (or the PAC12 stays intact), then can the remaining B12 survive and how? There are no really hot candidates left anywhere.
I think that it is hard for the B12 to ignore Central Florida. UCF has more than 60,000 undergraduates. The number of alumni is only about 320,000 since the school is not that old, but obviously with so many students they are growing. Orlando is a major market and obviously FL is a great recruiting area.
I would assume that nearly all UCF alums are in FL, so there is no major national reach, but is FL in addition to what is left of TX, be enough to save the league?
The ACC and SEC are obviously in FL, but there is plenty of room for another conference.
From the perspective of UCF, there is no other major conference that would ever look at them, so they should be willing to do whatever the remaining B12 wants, including taking a smaller share of revenue for a long time. Even the least valuable P5 conf crumbs would be more than the AAC can pay.
As far as existing B12 members, there is no particular reason for them to do anything other than insist that UT and OU honor their agreement until 2025, or pay in full to leave sooner. A settlement does not make sense for B12 schools unless schools have somewhere better to go, and it does not appear that the PAC or B1G will be in any hurry to rescue anyone.
LikeLike
Long term (and assuming that the B12 survives), does the Big12 think that the PAC might explode and leave behind major schools like Colorado, Utah, or the Arizona schools?
If you’re running the Big 12,you can’t rely on something like that happening. If it does happen, sure, they’ll happily pick up those schools, but they have to work with what is possible today.
So I expect the Big 12 to expand to at least 10, and maybe as many as 16 schools, taking in the best of the non-Power Five, however they determine that. There is probably no such school that would decline a B12 offer, so it is simply a matter of them deciding who and how many.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ll expand that much. It’s hard to find schools that bring sufficient value even at their new reduced value, plus they’ll want to assimilate them into the conference. Having 8 old members and 8 new members is begging for things to fall apart again.
I’d guess they’d like to get back to 10 for a round robin with a CCG. They’d consider 12 if the numbers make sense. More than that is too risky and unlikely to be helpful.
LikeLike
Is the remaining Big 12 really that much better than the AAC? The Big 12 is down to 2 flagship schools and only 1 school in a major metro area. The AAC doesn’t have any flagships but is in several major metro areas. The Big 12 has more prestige now, but if they have some poor seasons on the field and the AAC consistently produces seasons that put them in major bowls? The gap in perception will close and they could be viewed as #5a and #5b in the college football conference pecking order.
So it makes sense for the Big 12 to poach the strongest AAC programs both to strengthen themselves but also to weaken the AAC while the Big 12 is still in the stronger financial position. Make it the goal to be the best of the rest after the Power 4 and maybe even make it an argument with the Pac-12 if that conference continues to struggle to make the playoffs.
LikeLike
Logan,
“Is the remaining Big 12 really that much better than the AAC?”
As brands? Yes – at least those 8 made it into a P5 conference. Casual fans know who those schools are. The others never cleared that bar. That prestige will stick with them for a while.
As fan bases? Yes, with ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU and TT they have large state schools that are either the flagship (KU) or a large little brother (all the “State” schools).
As TV draws? Not really. It’s more about performance now (higher rated teams draw eyeballs).
“The AAC doesn’t have any flagships but is in several major metro areas.”
Being in metro areas only really matters if the people in those cities care about the team.
“The Big 12 has more prestige now, but if they have some poor seasons on the field and the AAC consistently produces seasons that put them in major bowls? The gap in perception will close and they could be viewed as #5a and #5b in the college football conference pecking order.”
But now those schools won’t face OU and UT every season. Suddenly their P5 schedules become easier and they are in the running for conference titles much more often. That will keep their names in the media, furthering their advantage. Meanwhile the AAC teams still only play 1-2 P5 teams per season and that will always hurt their perception.
“So it makes sense for the Big 12 to poach the strongest AAC programs both to strengthen themselves but also to weaken the AAC while the Big 12 is still in the stronger financial position. Make it the goal to be the best of the rest after the Power 4 and maybe even make it an argument with the Pac-12 if that conference continues to struggle to make the playoffs.”
To take 2-4, maybe. If the numbers make sense financially. If Fox tells them they’d make more staying at 8, that’s what they’ll do.
LikeLike
Brian,
Don’t disagree that the Big 12 is stronger right now.
Will K-State’s larger fan based continue to show up in rural Manhattan, KS, every other weekend when they are in a less prestigious conference playing lesser opponents? The Big 12 schools are all losing one marquee home game per season that cannot be replaced. There is some value to being close to population centers.
If the AAC and Big 12 get closer together, I believe it will be more because the Big 12 declines than because the AAC rises.
“But now those schools won’t face OU and UT every season. Suddenly their P5 schedules become easier and they are in the running for conference titles much more often. That will keep their names in the media, furthering their advantage. Meanwhile the AAC teams still only play 1-2 P5 teams per season and that will always hurt their perception.”
But look at Iowa State last year. They made a Big 12 title game and won the Fiesta Bowl on the backs of beating both Oklahoma and Texas while losing to Louisiana and OK State. Replace the OU/UT wins with random non-con, non-P5 wins and they don’t sniff the top 10. The easier schedule makes it easier to put up a nice record, but it also allows less room for slip ups.
LikeLike
Logan,
“Will K-State’s larger fan based continue to show up in rural Manhattan, KS, every other weekend when they are in a less prestigious conference playing lesser opponents?”
If they are winning a lot and competing for the B12 title frequently, yes.
“The Big 12 schools are all losing one marquee home game per season that cannot be replaced.”
Wins trump brands for ticket sales. UT an dOU fans used to buy those tickets.
“There is some value to being close to population centers.”
KSU is within 50 miles of Topeka and < 100 miles from KC.
"If the AAC and Big 12 get closer together, I believe it will be more because the Big 12 declines than because the AAC rises."
Agreed. But if anything, the B12 is more likely to pick off the cream of the AAC and grow the gap.
"But look at Iowa State last year. They made a Big 12 title game and won the Fiesta Bowl on the backs of beating both Oklahoma and Texas while losing to Louisiana and OK State. Replace the OU/UT wins with random non-con, non-P5 wins and they don’t sniff the top 10."
That's because it's ISU and its rare for them to win that much. But if they start winning 9+ games regularly, then they'll more easily get ranked highly. Their other problem is recruiting. They don't look like an elite athletic team even while winning, so many voters struggle to rank them super high.
"The easier schedule makes it easier to put up a nice record, but it also allows less room for slip ups."
True. But when the bounces all go your way, it can be a magic season.
LikeLike
“KSU is within 50 miles of Topeka and < 100 miles from KC."
I live in KC, went out to Manhattan a few weeks ago for work at the campus 🙂
"Agreed. But if anything, the B12 is more likely to pick off the cream of the AAC and grow the gap."
That's basically my point, I think it is smart to pick off the cream of the AAC to ensure their supremacy. Not picking them off leaves a risk, whether that risk is high or low, that the AAC will catch them.
Agree that winning cures all and if Iowa State turns in a Boise type run, they will be in great shape as a regular playoff contender. But some schools will go 5-7 in a conference with no marquee opponents – that's not great for ticket sales. And there is also the risk that parity rules, everyone beat up on each other or lose non-con games, and the conference finds itself irrelevant in the post season.
LikeLike
But it only makes sense to grab those schools if they make more money for the B12. If they don’t, then the gap is large enough to feel safe as is.
Getting back to 10 teams may be sufficient justification (CCG money and 9 game schedule). I just don’t know if any AAC schools are worth it for them. Only the TV people can really tell them that answer.
LikeLike
If ND is the white whale and is locked up with ACC, what league is USC in after 2024? Do they sign a GOR extension or call the B1G and ask how many friends they can bring along? Will the B1G really say no to USC/UCLA/WA/OR hoping the ever-elusive Irish may finally say yes in 2036? Or does the B1G wait and hope UNC/UVA can bring ND along with one more? Crystal ball time for many.
LikeLike
Bob,
“If ND is the white whale and is locked up with ACC, what league is USC in after 2024?”
I think ND is the B10’s dream goal and I fully believe they are locked into the ACC until 2036.
USC will still be in the P12 in 2024 because there’s no better option available to them. The B12 can’t pay them significantly more and the B10 couldn’t either unless they leave behind most of their friends.
“Do they sign a GOR extension or call the B1G and ask how many friends they can bring along?”
I think they inquire discreetly, just so they know their options, then agree to a short GoR extension. The media landscape is changing so quickly that I don’t think there will be a lot of long deals going forward. The valuable schools don’t want to risk being stuck for 15 years in a bad deal (see FSU and Clemson in the ACC). Values grow too quickly and modes of delivery are changing. The networks don’t want to be committed for too long either.
“Will the B1G really say no to USC/UCLA/WA/OR hoping the ever-elusive Irish may finally say yes in 2036?”
I don’t believe those 4 are ready to leave (yet). At the least, they will wait to see how this next round of negotiations go with the media companies. Will 100% P12N ownership pay off by being able to make a change? Will someone in big tech pay a lot for all their rights, or most of them (let Fox or ESPN have the big games and they can stream the rest)? They’ll also wait to see how the money from an expanded CFP will be split. Will the SEC and B10 gain separation by getting more teams in, or will the power conferences all make about the same amount like now?
In 2023 or 2024 they might be ready, because there will be clarity on the CFP, the composition of the new B12 (and their likely new payout), and how much the B10 will be making. But I’m guessing the P12 signs new deals through 2030-2032ish (when the BTN deal ends) and that’s when schools might consider leaving.
“Or does the B1G wait and hope UNC/UVA can bring ND along with one more? Crystal ball time for many.”
I think the B10 knows ND is an impossible dream unless something structurally changes CFB. The B10 still has eyes on UVA and UNC, but we need to see what happens with BTN in 2032 first. If the revenue model has changed by then, maybe expansion doesn’t make sense at all.
LikeLike
There is no reason to think Notre Dame would follow UNC/UVA to the Big Ten. Those two schools mean very little to the Irish. The ACC without UNC/UVA is still a power conference that would be glad to give ND a home for its Olympic sports. As long as that’s the case, they will be independent in football.
Will the B1G really say no to USC/UCLA/WA/OR…?
It’s far from clear that those four schools would really want to blow up the Pac-12. It would mean playing the majority of their road games (in all sports) in the central and eastern time zones. If you don’t realize how terrible that is, I’m sorry I can’t help you.
If anything happens, it would probably need to be something more like a full merger of the Big Ten and Pac-12, so that the Pacific schools could continue to play most of their games in the West. But does the Big Ten want to bail out those schools to that extent?
LikeLike
@Marc – I agree and don’t think UNC and/or UVA mean anything regarding Notre Dame’s independence. The Irish still stayed as a non-football member in the Big East when it lost Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College to ACC.
Further to your point about the prospect of the Big Ten adding Pac-12 schools, I believe that a lot of fans are asking the wrong question. It’s not about whether the Big Ten would say no to USC or other Pac-12 schools, but rather would USC and those other Pac-12 schools actually want to move to the Big Ten and effectively be on an island? As much as the Big Ten money might be attractive, there’s still a huge difference between the Big Ten having a league that would legitimately stretch from NYC to LA and what the SEC was able to just do with adding Texas and Oklahoma (where those schools will *not* be on an island).
I have full confidence that UT and OU will end up integrating very well into the SEC because the culture and geography of the parties involved are close enough. There might be an adjustment period and I’m sure you’ll hear complaints from fans from time to time with buyer’s remorse (just like what we’ve seen with Nebraska in the Big Ten), but at the end of day, the fit does make sense regardless of the significant money involved.
In contrast, just adding a handful of Pac-12 schools to the Big Ten simply doesn’t fit long-term outside of a pure money grab. I agree that it would effectively need to be a full merger of the Big Ten and Pac-12 in order for it to be a true fit (as I think fans are vastly overestimating how much a school like USC is going to willingly abandon so many key markets in their own home region like Phoenix, San Francisco and Denver). However, as you point out, a full merger likely doesn’t benefit the Big Ten financially compared to just staying pat.
The only possible financial argument that I could see with Big Ten/Pac-12 merger (which, to be very clear, I am *not* advocating at all) is that there could be a multiplier effect and value created from the synergy involved with that type of merger. Think of how the Big Ten wasn’t looking at Rutgers and Maryland to “deliver” the NYC and DC markets on their own, but rather the synergy of existing Big Ten fans and alums in those markets combined with Rutgers and Maryland as conduits were what created additional *overall* value that went beyond the individual values of those specific schools. One could argue that the Pac-12 schools could deliver this on an even larger scale. From what I’ve seen, as much as a lot of non-Pac-12 fans seem to think that Pac-12 fans aren’t passionate, I honestly believe that the Pac-12 schools do a heck of lot better job of consistently delivering their *large* markets (not merely college towns) of Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Phoenix, Portland, Denver and Salt Lake City than Rutgers and Maryland do for NYC and DC, respectively.
Once again, I’m not advocating for this approach and frankly would just rather the Big Ten to stand pat at this point, but I do think there’s much more to the analysis than simply arguing the Big Ten is currently making $55 million per school and the Pac-12 is currently making $35 million and, therefore, any critical mass or full merger Pac-12 schools must inherently drag down the per school value of the Big Ten. The synergy between the Big Ten and Pac-12 markets could very well create much more value than what their separate individual parts are worth on their own (e.g. that combined league would own 6 of the 7 largest TV markets under one roof). We can see that with the Rutgers and Maryland additions where they were making a relative pittance in the old Big East and ACC, respectively, yet their markets combined with the rest of the Big Ten created a lot more value for the entire conference than what we would have valued those individual schools on their own. What Rutgers got paid in the Big East bore almost no relation to what it ended being worth once it was integrated into the Big Ten and there’s a fair argument that a Big Ten/Pac-12 combination would be even more of the case.
Granted, I think that this is all water under the bridge since I don’t believe any of this is happening. This is all pure blue sky thinking.
LikeLike
Frank,
I think this is all a function of geography and time.
Ten years ago, you could’ve made a much better financial argument for adding a bunch of P12 schools because getting the BTN into most of CA, OR, WA, AZ, CO and UT (and other mountain states, potentially) would’ve been a gold mine. That’s how RU and UMD paid for their addition. But with cord cutting, do the P12 schools provide that same value now? How much does the P12N’s relative failure hurt the ability to monetize BTN out there? Maybe the tier 1 deal gains some value from adding major media markets into the conference, but that really only applies when big brands play each other. OrSU vs PU isn’t bringing in LA, SF and Phoenix.
Also, with the move east does the B10 also want to move west or is it committed to the east coast? If the P12 was in the CT zone and/or contiguous with the old B10 footprint, the schools would be much more likely candidates for realignment. CU is 500 miles from NU. Stretching from ocean to ocean is not a good thing for the athletes taking late night/early morning flights to get back to class. The entire P12 is also culturally different from the midwest.
NU’s travel is up over 20% in terms of distance since their Big 12 days. UMD expected travel costs to increase by $3M (100% increase)when they joined. How much more is regular travel to the west coast (and vice versa)?
I just don’t see the synergy being there in the current environment.
LikeLike
@Brian – That may very well be the case and you could be right. I just find this a bit more intriguing as a possibility for the Big Ten now that Texas (which was really the national brand/monster market white whale) is off the table and heading off to the league’s biggest competitor of the SEC. To the extent that there’s a “big” move out there for the Big Ten outside of trying to add Notre Dame (which realistically won’t happen), looking at a Pac-12 merger is one of the few that is at least more of a game changer (and note that I’m only considering this because I truly don’t believe that simply adding USC/UCLA and a couple of other Pac-12 schools is going to work for anyone involved long-term). We’re at the point for the Big Ten where adding Kansas or even UNC/UVA at the margins isn’t really any more attractive compared to just doing nothing (and as I’ve said before, doing nothing is a perfectly reasonable and logical stance for the Big Ten right now).
To your point about cord cutting, the one risk that I’ve been thinking about lately that could be a canary in the coal mine for the Big Ten is simply how their model for third tier sports rights on streaming have really been underwhelming with prices being charged that are way above what the market would reasonably bear. When ESPN+ costs $6.99 per month where they’re providing an entire suite of pro and college sports while BTN+ costs $14.95 per month for a fraction of the content for a single conference, there’s just no way that’s going to be viable long-term.
This might be fine for now since the BTN+ revenue is worth just a tiny fraction compared to the primary BTN cable revenue, but as cord cutting continues and the league and Fox need to start planning for a shift to an a la carte streaming model, they really don’t have a good streaming base at all compared to the conferences that are aligned with Disney/ESPN.
The BTN cable model is really based on being a super-regional sports network (high cable revenue in Big Ten states and low cable revenue elsewhere) as opposed to being a true national sports network. However, a streaming service puts much more of a premium in being national in nature: it’s difficult to charge someone one price in Chicago and a different price in Dallas for the same streaming service.
What could create a national college sports streaming service where they need to provide content and be able to charge a lower price point for a larger number of households like ESPN+ as opposed to a high price points for a smaller number of households like RSNs? Well, if I’m thinking out loud, combining the Big Ten and Pac-12 properties would be actually be a great combination for a sports streaming service on paper. That’s a ton of content covering a huge swath of the country in major markets and you could argue that the Pac-12’s time zone issue becomes a benefit since you’re getting more programming options throughout the entire day. It’s much harder for a single conference (even ones like the Big Ten and SEC) to go it alone in a streaming service compared to a conference cable network, so the Big Ten needs to plan for that long-term.
Eventually, the way BTN is structured isn’t going to be the best way for the Big Ten to maximize revenue from the second and third tier rights anymore and it could very well mean partnering with another conference like the Pac-12 on those rights (even if it’s not an actual conference merger) might make sense for a streaming service.
LikeLike
Frank and Brian are correct, ND isn’t too worried about where UNC or UVA play. As long as they get a good home for other sports and have access to CFB they aren’t ever going to change.
Frank makes a good point about synergy and a multiplier effect. USC or a USC & TeamX probably don’t work and a full on P12/B1G merger is too many mouths to feed, and isn’t much better than a scheduling agreement. I wonder if there is a sweet spot in terms of number of P12 teams going to the B1G that works for everyone? Would the right group of 6 from the P12 provide enough value, synergy, cultural fit, and market multipliers?
Wish I was a fly on the wall in JimD’s office right about now. I’m sure those conference calls with his P12 and ACC clients would be entertaining.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree that with UT off the board and ND unrealistic, the P12 becomes the most intriguing idea for the B10. The only other one is an ACC move getting Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Tampa and Miami, and we know that can’t happen for over a decade. We also know it’s a worse fit and probably less valuable. I just don’t think it is plausible right now.
I think all of streaming and linear networks are going through a transition. Streaming services are starting to bundle like cable did. Networks are trying to straddle the fence and end up doing the streaming poorly. I’m not surprised BTN+ is overpriced and probably not well done. Fox is worse than ESPN at everything. They destroyed their website which was already a distant second to ESPN.com. ESPN > FS1. ESPN2 >> FS2. I can’t speak to SECN vs BTN because I don’t watch SECN, but BTN sets a fairly low bar.
I also expect streaming prices to continue to grow rapidly. ESPN is trying to lure people in, but that 6.99 price will go away once the service becomes more popular. Look at Netflix – Premium is now double the original price of Netflix.
So could a Fox+ service combine BTN, P12N and even B12N (if they chose to leave ESPN over this move) for a reasonable fee and be successful? Maybe, though I wouldn’t trust Fox to build it.
I am not at all shocked to learn the B10 is behind the trend on streaming. I’ve never tried to stream anything from Fox or BTN, but that does seem to be the future. Maybe MLB can teach them how to do it.
“The BTN cable model is really based on being a super-regional sports network (high cable revenue in Big Ten states and low cable revenue elsewhere) as opposed to being a true national sports network.”
Yes, but if the P12 joins the B10, then it becomes regional in all but the south. That’s a lot of households.
“However, a streaming service puts much more of a premium in being national in nature: it’s difficult to charge someone one price in Chicago and a different price in Dallas for the same streaming service.”
Maybe they’ll just go with an a la carte approach, like PPV.
I can see working with the P12 as advantageous for future streaming potentially, but I don’t see how actually merging would help that. Couldn’t they stay separate and just negotiate together?
LikeLike
@Brian – Oh, I agree. The Big Ten and Pac-12 could be separate leagues and still come together on a streaming network or otherwise pool media rights. It doesn’t actually require a merger.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about similar possibilities of agreeing to some sort of financial equity arrangement with the PAC 12 structured with a merger of the conference networks and a football scheduling agreement. You wouldn’t necessarily have to pool all media rights and do an even distribution but I could see some synergies for both leagues and a bigger financial reward overall with the PAC 12 closing the gap to a degree.
Since the PAC 12 owns it’s poorly distributed network they could position the sale of that network with the renegotiated Tier 1 rights. Additionally, they could somehow leverage the Rose Bowl within this equity arrangement.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about similar possibilities of agreeing to some sort of financial equity arrangement with the PAC 12 structured with a merger of the conference networks and a football scheduling agreement.
I’ve thought about that too. A couple of questions come to mind. How much would the Pac-12 be willing to pay for access to the Big Ten’s money machine? How much would the Big Ten want for that? It’s not going to be a merger of equals.
From a scheduling perspective, the Big Ten hasn’t had trouble attracting marquee national non-conference match-ups. Ohio State, for example, has future home-and-homes with Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. Since every Big Ten team wants seven home games, they’re not going to play those games, a 9-game conference slate, and also a Pac-12 opponent.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I like the general concept. Maybe the B10 and P12 agree to split the gain from synergy below tier 1 equally per school (everyone goes up $5M or whatever), and each league keeps whatever gains the synergy makes in their tier 1 deal. Or vice versa. Not having to level up the P12 schools makes it a viable option.
I think we need to reconsider the concept of a scheduling alliance. With both conferences at 9 games, we know locking in a 10th P5 game (11th for several schools) is unlikely. But what if the crossover games counted as the 9th conference game (with 2 B10 schools playing each other to balance the numbers)? The B10 would need the rules for CCGs to change so they can do locked rivals instead of divisions (P12 could go either way – see below). They could do parity-based scheduling to get the best games (alternate years of the B10 and P12 hosting all games) with the 2 worst B10 teams playing each other.
B10:
9 games = 6 in division + 3/7 crossovers (play everyone in 2.33 yrs)
9 games = 6 in division + 2/7 crossovers + 1 P12 (play everyone in 3.5 yrs)
9 games = 3 locked rivals + 5/10 others + 1 P12 (play everyone in 2 yrs)
P12:
9 games = 5 in division + 4/6 crossovers (play everyone in 1.5 yrs)
9 games = 5 in division + 3/6 crossovers + 1 B10 (play everyone in 2 yrs)
9 games = 3 locked rivals + 5/8 others + 1 B10 (play everyone in 1.6 yrs)
LikeLike
I’m curious about the possibility, 10 years down the road, of bringing in just one school:
Va Tech
= 70% larger undergraduate enrollment than UVA
= almost AAU today
= Football “brand’, high football attendance
= Isn’t Va Tech more culturally similar to a typical B1G school than UVA?
Why isn’t Va Tech a better add than UVA?
Why couldn’t a conference have 3 divisions for football?
3 divisions of 5 teams each.
Have the highest ranked of the division winners play in the championship game.
It creates some intrigue and leaves the left out division winner in a good spot to
make the CFB 12 team playoff.
LikeLike
@Dave – I like Virginia Tech and could understand their value from a football perspective, but having visited both UVA and VT, I would definitely say that UVA is much more of a Big Ten cultural fit whereas VT feels more like an SEC school. (It’s similar to how I think Texas feels more like a Big Ten school while Texas A&M is a classic SEC school. Of course, both are in the SEC now, so what do I know?) In any event, I’d be surprised if the Big Ten just added VT alone. Now, if UVA said that it would go to the Big Ten but only if VT came along, then I think the B1G would at least consider it (despite the lack of AAU status for VT).
One logistical hurdle any time that there’s an odd number of teams in a league: it means that it’s impossible to have an odd number of conference games (as the Big Ten does now with 9 conference games).
LikeLike
UT is not a great cultural fit with the SEC, but it would not be with the B1G either. When UT joins it will be the most liberal school in the SEC while it would have been the most conservative school in the B1G if it joined without OU. 20 years ago a SEC football game looked more like a civil war re-enactment with all the Confederate battle flags in the stands; some even in school colors. The SEC schools have moved to ban these flags (bad for recruiting). Ole Miss is still called the Rebels, but the Colonel was retired about 10 years ago. Net is that the SEC has moved toward where UT was 10 years ago so the fit is better. U.Va best fit is with the ACC.
From a culture standpoint UT may have fit better with the ACC; however, things have changed in the past 10 years. Recruiting is a prime UT concern, and going to the ACC would not improve that. ACC also had less money than even the B12 and longer travel. OU would have still gone to the SEC if it could get an invite without TX, and that would be very bad for recruiting in Texas with OU to the north and A&M to the southeast.
UT preferred the PAC 10 years ago as evidenced by the 6 school deal that fell apart.
However, the PAC network has been a failure, the current money is no better than the B12, and UT would be isolated from the rest of the conference. The PAC would have taken OU, but not sure OU would go unless it was the only option. So UT in the PAC has the same problems as USC and UCLA in the B1G, except without the big raise in pay.
I am sure there are some UT execs that would have preferred the B1G. However, with a low probability of OU getting an invite that would have meant UT being as isolated from the rest of the B1G as WV is from the rest of the B12. In the last 10 years the B1G has moved east with MD and Rutgers while the SEC moved west with A&M and MO. That made the SEC a much better geographic fit. The SEC has 12 schools closer to Austin (13 w/OU) than the nearest B1G schools (IL,IA). Despite the better academics of the B1G, the better recruiting, geographic fit, and the ability to keep OU a conference game won out. Better money did not hurt, but UT said money was not the primary decision driver (UT AD revenue exceeds $200M+ per year today). If the B1G won on the other factors (including admitting OU) I am sure UT would be joining the B1G rather than the SEC. However, the SEC has increased its positives and decreased it negatives such that while UT had the SEC as the #4 conference 10 years ago it is #1 now.
LikeLike
Little8,
“UT is not a great cultural fit with the SEC,”
Maybe, maybe not. It’s football focused and southern and they have several rivals in the SEC already, so I think they’d fit decently. The SEC isn’t a monolith.
“but it would not be with the B1G either.”
Agreed.
“When UT joins it will be the most liberal school in the SEC”
? Maybe. SEC fans say that Vandy and Mizzou are fairly liberal (at least in comparison).
“while it would have been the most conservative school in the B1G if it joined without OU.”
Purdue is quite conservative.
“20 years ago a SEC football game looked more like a civil war re-enactment with all the Confederate battle flags in the stands; some even in school colors.”
It’s not that bad everywhere. And frankly, that’s part of life in the south. Those flags are everywhere.
“From a culture standpoint UT may have fit better with the ACC;”
I agree, but they’d also stick out being such a large state school (only FSU is larger than 36,000).
Let’s be honest, UT best fits into a TX conference.
“UT preferred the PAC 10 years ago”
And the B10 long before that.
“However, with a low probability of OU getting an invite”
That’s not clear at all.
“The SEC has 12 schools closer to Austin (13 w/OU) than the nearest B1G schools (IL,IA).”
I think Lincoln is closer to Austin than Iowa City, but nobody disputes the geographic edge.
“Better money did not hurt, but UT said money was not the primary decision driver”
Anytime someone says that, money was the driving factor.
LikeLike
Dave,
“I’m curious about the possibility, 10 years down the road, of bringing in just one school:
Va Tech
= 70% larger undergraduate enrollment than UVA”
A plus for them. But their location hurts them.
“= almost AAU today”
This isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn’t count (unless it’s ND).
“= Football “brand’, high football attendance”
The brand left with Beamer.
“= Isn’t Va Tech more culturally similar to a typical B1G school than UVA?”
The students? Maybe. The academic culture? No. UVA is the flagship and does about 20% more total federal research despite being smaller.
“Why isn’t Va Tech a better add than UVA?”
UVA is linked to UNC and UMD with rivalries, VT isn’t. UVA is a better school.
“Why couldn’t a conference have 3 divisions for football?”
Right now, rules don’t allow for it.
LikeLike
Why couldn’t a conference have 3 divisions for football?
As Brian noted, the rules currently don’t allow it. Even with a rule change, I am not really sure the point of having 3 division champs, when one of the three gets nothing for “winning” it.
It creates some intrigue and leaves the left out division winner in a good spot to make the CFB 12 team playoff.
There are so many other ways to create intrigue. Don’t have divisions at all, and the top two meet. Anyhow, I don’t see why the third division winner would have any kind of playoff advantage. You could easily have a season like this:
Division X: Top two have records of 8-1 and 7-2
Division Y: Top is 6-3
Division Z: Top is 6-3
In your proposal, one of the 6-3 teams would be selected for the CCG via tie-breaker. That team would probably make the playoff only if it wins the CCG. The other 6-3 team wouldn’t have much of a chance. The league’s second playoff team would probably be the 7-2 squad.
(This is ignoring non-conference records that don’t count for winning a division.)
LikeLike
My point is that the B12 is not necessarily in a rush. The Big12 GOR ends one year after the PAC12 GOR. The PAC ends in 2024 while the Big12 ends in 2025.
The Big12 can wait and see what happens to the PAC, before the Big12 is really forced to act.
If the B1G raids the PAC12 and say the B1G takes 6 teams to reach 20, that leaves some attractive left overs on the table with nowhere to go. The only way for the remaining 6 PAC teams to survive will be a merger with the Big12, but then the Big12 will have some leverage, and the combined teams should easily keep their P4 membership..
Obviously to maintain that strength, the Big12 has to insist on full payment by UT and OU. In addition the B12 GOR requires 18 months notice, so that takes care of the 2021 and 2022 seasons. By then the status of USC, et., al., might be much clearer than it is today
LikeLike
Bernie,
In addition, they’ll want to wait on adding anyone new until their TV deal ends. If they bring in new members, Fox can adjust the deal due to a composition change. While they likely won’t cut the money to the current 8, they aren’t going to pay that same rate for UC and UCF (just to pick 2). Why give Fox the chance? Just negotiate the next deal with the new members.
LikeLike
Jim Delaney advising multiple conferences?
LikeLike
There’s an article in The Athletic today about Delaney and realignment.
Not a paid spokesman, but if you don’t have already have a subscription you should.
With all due respect the Frank, its the best place for realignment coverage and analysis..
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Agreed. I’ve been impressed with The Athletic’s coverage on conference realignment and frankly sports overall. They’ve given a home to so many local beat writers that were laid off by newspapers (who outside of a few national outlets like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post are penny-pinching on actual news coverage for short-term profit margins but in turn are killing their long-term relevance). Their coverage of Chicago sports teams is quite a bit more in-depth than the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times at this point.
LikeLike
If I were a conference commissioner, I would have consultants for figuring out the impact of NIL rules and benefitting from them. That could have far more of an impact than realignment.
LikeLike
Phil Knight’s all over that.
LikeLike
As I don’t have an Athletic sub, what are the “two schools of thought”?
LikeLike
I don’t subscribe either, but I’ll take a guess:
1. Superconferences. 4 x 16 or 2 x 32 (SEC vs B10 model)
2. Nothing much beyond B12 adding a few G5 schools
LikeLike
If the B1G and the PAC were to merge, that would be 26 schools, somewhat of an awkward number. Twenty eight would be more convenient for pods. Would than make room for Kansas and Iowa St as bridge schools?
Iowa St is ranked no. 8 in the coaches preseason poll.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just have 2 divisions (P12 and B10) with the champs meeting in the CCG? Play 8 games + 1 crossover, and use locked rivals within each division. Then there’s no need to dilute the money by adding 2 more historically weak CFB programs in small states.
And if you’re doing that, why not stay separate conferences?
If they do add KU and ISU but still keep divisions, move NE to the P12 and put ISU in the B10. Then NE can renew their rivalry with CU and recruit more in CA. It also gets another brand into the P14 and helps them broaden their footprint.
LikeLike
Scheduling is a second-order decision. If a deal makes sense in all the other ways that count, you figure it out somehow. You don’t add schools you’d otherwise reject, just to create pods with even numbers.
LikeLike
@bob sykes – That’s always the challenge with the thought of these proposed superconferences that go beyond 16 schools.
A hypothetical 26-school (or 28-school) Big Ten/Pac-12 would effectively still just be two separate conferences that happen to be under the same umbrella superconference. In practicality, it may not produce any more East vs. West games compared to just having a non-conference scheduling agreement between the two leagues without a merger.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s been my struggle with a merger. I just don’t see the benefit to the Big Ten side to absorbing the whole Pac-12.
The only way this works financially and in terms of incentivizing crossover games that we’d want, is if the number of Pac-12 schools involved is limited to at most 6 or 8.
Otherwise, it’s just 2 separate conferences and what’s the point? Hard to get BTN benefits from that for the Big Ten if you’re not absorbing the schools and hard to get national TV benefits if you aren’t creating 2-3 crossover matchups a year for the Pac-12 schools but you can’t do that with all 12 of them.
If USC has discussions with the Big Ten, I think we make a hard press that they have to come with only 5-7 at most.
LikeLike
Or, as suggested above, negotiate the Tier II and III together. Right now, the BTN gives the Big 10 a huge advantage over the Pac, but that is diminishing. The other big gap is the Tier I games. Big 10 has more of those really big rated games. Keep tier I separate, but do arrange for a few USC-Michigan, Washington-Ohio St. type matchups.
You can do savings through merging certain conference functions. You could only cooperate on media negotiations or you could completely merge the conference offices without merging the conferences for NCAA purposes.
LikeLike
Historically these conference realignments have been like lightning strikes: totally unexpected, coming out of nowhere and accurately forcast by no one. Let’s review:
Arkansas jumps from SWC to SEC.
S. Carolina jumps ACC to SEC.
SWC implodes, UT, TT, A&M and Baylor combine with Big 8 to form Big XII.
Pac-8 invites AZ and ASU.
Big East refuses to invite Penn St, gets raided by ACC and folds.
ACC also invites FSU and Miami.
B1G invites Penn St.
Big XII loses CO, Mizzou, NE, A&M
B1G invites Rutgers and Maryland.
Big XII invites WV.
UT and OU go to SEC.
Now, did anyone see any of that coming? I believe we will see more realignment in the future but it will be behind closed doors and it will be a surprise again.
LikeLike
I don’t have the time to go knee-deep into research from decades ago, but quite a few of these were easily foreseeable—and foreseen. I don’t just mean by fans posting at 2am in their pajamas. Indeed, Frank the Tank himself predicted quite a few of them.
It is public knowledge that Texas looked at both the Pac-12 and the Big Ten a decade ago. You would have to be a complete fool, not to have expected them to look again. Although the exact timing was a surprise, the general outlines of it did not “come out of nowhere.”
I won’t go through every one, but when the Big XII added WV, it had just lost four schools. Nobody thought they would stay at eight; it was only a question of who (and how many) they would add. I certainly remember WV coming up as one of the best candidates available. That didn’t “come out of nowhere” either.
LikeLike
It’s funny you say that but there were articles about how the next big round of conference realignment would happen in 2023.
Those articles were 2 years off, but the basic jist wasn’t. The GoRs basically tell you when realignment is going to happen these days:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/19743196/why-2023-next-big-date-conference-shuffling
Here’s a 2017 article from Rittenberg that basically captured what happened this year (just Texas/OU announced the move probably 6-12 months early because it got leaked by A&M – most likely).
There’s 2 major realignment questions now: Pac-12 and ACC.
Pac-12 is probably going to be decided in the next 6-18 months because the Big Ten and Pac-12 TV deals are up for renegotiation, and USC will basically make its decision at some point that it’s either stay in the Pac-12 or looking at something else. Big Ten likely begins its negotiation in early 2022 and Pac-12 likely begins its a year later (but may try to push up if they try to sell the Pac-12 Networks to Fox or another media/tech company).
So if the Pac-12 implodes or merges with another conference or does anything, they’re likely to do it in the next 2-3 years.
The ACC is likely to be decided around 2031-2033. That’s when the GoR will be down to 3-5 years and it’ll be time for Clemson/FSU to say they’re unhappy with the ACC’s TV money and then we see whether anything changes there.
LikeLike
Basically, don’t be shocked if something happens with USC next year and the ACC schools in the early 2030s; those are basically where things would be decided.
Texas/OU were always going to be chased again before the Big 12 deal got negotiated again (especially since they weren’t granted an early renegotiation).
LikeLike
z33k, your link is 2017. I’m talking 1990 thru today, the past 3o years.And there is much I didn’t include:
Ga Tech leaves SEC.
Big East expels Temple.
ACC academic snobs invite academic skank Louisville.
Conference realignment will continue to be full of surprises.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s true; I still think we’ve reached the point where things are a lot more predictable just because the money situation is a lot clearer and there’s more separate tiers between the conferences.
LikeLike
The expulsion of Temple was a multi-year process. There was no support for the football team and in 1995 the average attendance at football games was just over 4,000. The football stadium was a disaster with maximum capacity of just over 30,000.
Temple agreed to put more resources into football but did not do so.
LikeLike
Jersey,
Those steps had been a part of their provisional membership. In other words, Temple left of their own accord at the end of the provisional period. I don’t know why it bothers me is much having no affinity for other the school or conference. Same with reversing the supposed kicking out of the PCC. Or blaming the B8 for not inviting everybody as if they were responsible for the SWC. I just don’t like misrepresentation of past events being used to “assert” what could/should happen currently.
LikeLike
Colorado to the Pac was first discussed seriously around 1990. Maybe earlier. Texas A&M had a deal to go to the SEC in 1990 and another one in 1994. The Big 10 was looking hard at Rutgers in 1999 after the Notre Dame deal fell apart.
Miami to the ACC and the Arizona schools to the Pac were pretty predictable.
Maryland was probably the biggest surprise in that list.
LikeLike
@Colin – In most cases, the timing is a surprise, although there are a couple of exceptions. The Big Ten adding Nebraska, for instance, was the result of a fairly lengthy and public expansion review and exercise by the conference. It’s the reason why most of the readers here found this blog in the first place. My initial thoughts on Texas being the top target for the Big Ten grabbed the most attention, but within a short timeframe, the consensus was that Nebraska would be the most likely addition to the league out of anyone and it was a matter of whether anyone else would be coming with them.
In contrast, the Big Ten inviting Rutgers and Maryland was a surprise in terms of the timing, although the fact that the league wanted them wasn’t a surprise at all. Frankly, the most prescient post that I’ve ever had on this blog was one where I received some viewership and analysis from someone in the TV industry to project the value of different Big Ten expansion candidates in 2010. In that analysis, Texas and Notre Dame were of course the most valuable. The next 3 most valuable candidates on the list: Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. I’ve had a lot of wrong predictions and wacky theories here, but the blind squirrel finds the nut every once in awhile!
West Virginia going to the Big 12 was also a bit more of a prescribed expansion (or really backfilling of Texas A&M and Missouri). That was more of a question of whether WVU, Louisville and/or BYU would be getting an invite.
The instability in the Big 12 that spurred Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M to leave in the first place was rooted in Texas always being a threat to leave (just as it had done to the SWC). So, the earthquake fault line in the Big 12 has long been there. I’d agree that the timing of that earthquake right now with UT and OU going to the SEC was very unexpected just like any other earthquake.
LikeLike
I don’t think having a 3rd Division would be much of a problem. We’re basically nearing the point where the biggest conferences could just detach and make their own rules for postseason play.
If you’re the Big Ten or SEC, wouldn’t you rather have 2 semifinals and then a championship that you control as opposed to shifting it all to the playoff?
Just saying, if the Big Ten takes 6-8 Pac-12 teams and creates a 3rd division; we could have 3 division champs and a wild card.
And if the rest of CFB say no, you tell them to kick rocks. We’re basically near the point where the SEC and Big Ten can do what they want within reason.
LikeLike
No, I really wouldn’t want a conference tournament. Especially if the playoff is expanding anyway. A tournament is just a chance to put losses on 3 of your 4 best teams.
If I was the B10, I’d rather have the old bowl system with the Rose Bowl as the end all be all (Sugar Bowl for the SEC).
LikeLike
The playoff would have to look very different or Warren (and the Big Ten brass/Fox brass) aren’t doing their jobs.
And yeah that’s one way to go about it, do a mini 2-4 team thing after the NY bowls.
I’m just saying that’s a problem you solve later.
The first question is whether USC would consider going to the Big Ten as its best scenario and the second question is whether the Big Ten would take them (and a number of other Pac-12 teams).
The rest will sort itself out… no different from the SEC not really having anything set after taking Texas/OU as for how pods/divisions/scheduling will sort itself out.
All in all, given that all the other contracts are up, this is a pretty optimal time for USC/Big Ten to consider whether this is the path of the future.
If it doesn’t happen, that’s fine too; I just don’t see anything (playoff situation, Big Ten/Pac-12 TV contracts, division/conference format) that would make this a suboptimal time to consider it given everything else can be worked on after…
LikeLike
I agree those are all things you decide after expanding. Expansion needs to make sense on its own merits, then you figure out scheduling, the CFP, etc.
I disagree that this is the optimal time for USC or the B10. It’s a decent time to discuss it, but USC would be crazy to decide anything until after the P12 negotiates their next deal. Nobody knows what value those P12N rights may have. And with the move to streaming, they may want to wait a decade to see how the right market evolves. Maybe they can return to a time where being in the P12 is advantageous because of all their large markets.
Likewise, the B10 might prefer to wait until the BTN deal is ending. What’s the future for those rights? Will the B10 press on alone? Will Fox renew for more (or less) money? Is ESPN or a big tech company interested? That might be the time to talk about whether expanding west makes sense.
LikeLike
The Big Ten already tried that, when they didn’t join the Bowl Coalition or the Bowl Alliance. Eventually, they threw in the towel and joined the Bowl Alliance’s successor, the BCS. At that point, the traditional Rose Bowl was no longer guaranteed to host the B1G and P12 champs anymore.
Even in the years when the Rose Bowl does host a B1G vs. a P12 team, it is a consolation prize (aside from when the two of them are coincidentally playoff teams). Perhaps there were a few Ohio State fans who were happy the Buckeyes lost to Purdue in 2018, so that they could miss the playoff and appear in the Rose Bowl instead. But I cannot imagine there were many.
How many in conference or school leadership are advocating for a return to the old days?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Marc – Yes, that’s the reality. No one in the Big Ten is advocating for a return to the old days. While I understand Brian’s concern about the possibility of 3 or 4 loss teams being included in the playoff, that may honestly be a feature instead of a bug to a lot of *schools*. In the CFP era, the “Big Ten” making the playoff has really been “Ohio State” making the playoff (with the exception of the one season where Michigan State broke through). It wouldn’t shock me at all that Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin (much less more pedestrian football programs like my Illini) aren’t looking at it through the lens of the system for the “Big Ten” making the playoff (as that has practically just meant Ohio State making the playoff), but rather advocate for the system that best allows for their own *schools* to make the playoff at this point. I think it would be mistake for anyone to think that the fact that Ohio State consistently making the 4-team playoff means that the rest of the Big Ten thinks that having only them as a de facto annual conference representative is satisfactory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank the Tank,
“While I understand Brian’s concern about the possibility of 3 or 4 loss teams being included in the playoff, that may honestly be a feature instead of a bug to a lot of *schools*.”
It’s a lot more than that. The CFP has sucked the life out of the regular season already because from day 1, that’s all TV talks about. With 12 teams, even winning your conference is almost meaningless. It’s also eliminating what was unique about CFB and turning it into NFL-lite. If I wanted the NFL, I’d watch the NFL. The whole postseason has been ruined for me, as I don’t watch the CFP (even if OSU is in it) and the major bowls have lost their meaning. The only reason I follow CFB at all anymore is because OSU happens to be good at it and winning is fun. I probably wouldn’t watch a game all year or follow the sport at all if OSU was a non-king. CFB was better pre-BCS.
“In the CFP era, the “Big Ten” making the playoff has really been “Ohio State” making the playoff (with the exception of the one season where Michigan State broke through).”
True. At least someone carried the flag for the B10. Imagine if the CFP had started during the B10’s doldrums during the late BCS era.
“It wouldn’t shock me at all that Michigan, Penn State and Wisconsin (much less more pedestrian football programs like my Illini) aren’t looking at it through the lens of the system for the “Big Ten” making the playoff (as that has practically just meant Ohio State making the playoff), but rather advocate for the system that best allows for their own *schools* to make the playoff at this point.”
With the money being split almost equally regardless of who made the CFP, I don’t think it was a major issue. The schools wanted to perform better, sure, but that was for other reasons. The same was true when Tressel was dominating the B10, then Meyer just cranked things up a notch. UM hasn’t won the B10 since a split title in 2004, and hasn’t beaten OSU since the Fickell-led 2011 season and then 2003 before that. They want to fix that more than they’re worried about making the CFP. Likewise WI and PSU want to win more, and with that would come CFP bids.
I’m not saying they don’t want more CFP bids, but those bids mean less if there are 12 of them anyway. It’s just like making a NY6 bowl now. In general, the fans want some other teams in the CFP which is understandable. But when they end up with the same handful in the semifinals still, we’ll see what happens. When the top teams went to separate bowls, you didn’t have these complaints despite the same teams being there year after year. Just saying.
“I think it would be mistake for anyone to think that the fact that Ohio State consistently making the 4-team playoff means that the rest of the Big Ten thinks that having only them as a de facto annual conference representative is satisfactory.”
No, but that’s a competitive issue not a CFP size issue. Since 2012 (Meyer’s first year), OSU has the #1 conference W% in CFB at 93.2%. Next come Clemson and AL, both at or above 90%. I doubt that is sustainable for any of the 3. Next in the P5 is OU at 85.3%. Then comes WI at 71.2%.
All time, FSU is at 76.9%, OU at 76.0%, OSU at 74.4%, AL at 72.5%, USC at 71.0%, and UM at 70.6%. NE, Texas and Miami are just behind at 67.5% or higher.
For a comparison, I looked at the Big 2’s heyday of 1968-1977. Bot OSU and UM won 89.0%, UT 87.5%, OU 84.3%, AL 80.9%, and USC 80.6%. So you do see periods of high performance, but 3 teams at or above 90% is probably unheard of, especially with expanded conferences and CCGs.
LikeLike
Marc,
“The Big Ten already tried that, when they didn’t join the Bowl Coalition or the Bowl Alliance.”
They did it for a lot longer than that, and it worked just fine for decades.
Old bowl system > BC > BA > BCS > CFP
The CFP just pays more.
“Eventually, they threw in the towel and joined the Bowl Alliance’s successor, the BCS.”
They (and the P10 and the Rose Bowl itself) held out for several reasons. The RB was afraid it might lose its contract with ABC if it released one of the champs to play elsewhere in a NCG. More importantly, the RB got to keep its exclusive TV slot on NYD afternoon. The BC and BA couldn’t provide those guarantees, and the RB paid more anyway.
“At that point, the traditional Rose Bowl was no longer guaranteed to host the B1G and P12 champs anymore.”
And CFB has gone downhill ever since.
“Perhaps there were a few Ohio State fans who were happy the Buckeyes lost to Purdue in 2018, so that they could miss the playoff and appear in the Rose Bowl instead.”
You never want them to lose, but I’d rather they played in the RB than that the CFP existed. I was fine with the BC and BA – let everyone else have their NCG. The B10 was doing just fine financially from the RB and split national titles are a net positive for CFB, not a negative.
“How many in conference or school leadership are advocating for a return to the old days?”
There’s no point, because they know you can’t go back. I said what I would want, not what I would try to make happen.
LikeLike
With the current 12 team proposal wanting to shoe horn in the quarter finals and semi finals into the bowl locations, could we see a possible return of champion vs champions in the Rose Bowl, (and Sugar Bowl for that matter? There has been a lot of hypothetical talk of the B1G taking Pac-12 Schools and forming a third division. There has been talk in the past of PODS spurring the advent of conference semi final games as well. All of it is message board speculation of course other than the sparse details of the 12 team playoff expiation.
So for arguments sake assume something like this happened; with the ACC locked up until the 2030s and wanting to preserve the Rose Bowl Connection and garner Fast growing markets, and AAU schools, the B1G adds: Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, & Washington. This forms the B1G West Division, Indiana slides over into the current West Divisions, and that becomes the B1G Central. The SEC (ESPN) Counters (consolidates) by adding Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia & Virginal Tech to form the SEC Atlantic Division. The likely future/current SEC East would become the SEC Central. With the ACC gutted and the hand writing on the wall, Notre Dame along with Miami (FLA) are added to the B1G East.
The remaining Pac-4 and the Big 8 teams become the Pac-Southwest. The ACC backfills with form Metro league and Big East football teams. The 48 teams in the B1G & SEC get legislation passed that allows conference with 18 or more members to hold semifinal games. SEC hold their semi finals in Atlanta & Arlington. B1G hold theirs in Indianapolis and Las Vegas. The winners of the semi finals would play for their conference respect championships in the Sugar and Rose Bowl. The Pac-SW champ could go to the Fiesta Bowl, the ACC champ could go to the Orange Bowl. The 12 team play off could be played a week after the army navy game with semi finals on Christmas eve. Made of say the next top 12 ranked teams. The winners of the semi finals would be placed in the Fiesta and Orange bowls as at large teams. The winners of those for bowls would play in the Cotton and Peach bowl a week later, and the winners of those two bowls would meet in the National Title Game on MLK Day.
I am not advocating this, just drawing it out as a though exercise based on things people are writing on the various boards.
LikeLike
If you’re the Big Ten or SEC, wouldn’t you rather have 2 semifinals and then a championship that you control as opposed to shifting it all to the playoff?
The Big Ten already had a version of that, when they refused to participate in the Bowl Alliance. In the end, they caved.
In the playoff era, the Big Ten has made the playoff in only 5 out of 7 years. In 3 of the 5 they reached, their team lost in the semi-final. The Pac-12 is even worse. They reached only 2 playoffs (none of the last 4), and in both cases lost by wide margins in the semi-final.
So, a “playoff” consisting only of Big Ten+Pac-12 schools would essentially be a losers’ championship. And what would be the quality of play? The top recruits want to be in the highest-profile games. How many 5* players would sign up to play for that?
Fans and players aren’t that dumb. It would be obvious that the Big Ten was dodging the best teams. Imagine that your system had been in place for the last 20 years…what would the national ranking have been of the typical #4 team in a Big Ten-only playoff?
LikeLike
Semi-finals mean you have 4 to 6 team division winners getting in a 4 team tournament. That can be like the NFL with a .500 team getting in. So no, I would not prefer semi-finals in the conference. I think its a terrible idea. The ONLY positive is that it is more money controlled only by the conference, which means its a bad idea that might sometime be implemented.
LikeLike
Marc,
I thought he meant a 4-team tournament for the conference title rather than just a CCG. Then send the conference champ to a small playoff. If the B10 and SEC were each generating 4 of the 12 teams, why not keep that money in house and just stay with a 4-team CFP where the money is split equally?
LikeLike
Yeah I didn’t mean to get rid of the playoff but allow more “championship” games (i.e. 2 semifinal games for conferences with 3-4 divisions/pods) for the conferences to control which would benefit 16+ size conferences.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification. The thing is, they could do that and still participate in a 12-team playoff. Just end the “regular season” a week early. The conference semi-finals would be Thanksgiving weekend, with every other team playing a designated consolation game that isn’t known until a week in advance. The conference championship game would be in its regular week, and then onto the CFB playoff.
(All of this assumes conference championship game de-regulation, which is a prerequisite for many of these variants we are discussing.)
LikeLike
Marc,
A 12-team CFP where several of the teams just played each other in a knockout tournament (perhaps for the second time that season) and might play again sounds silly. it’s bad enough that a champ and the CCG loser could both go. It’s as if that game didn’t count, so why even play it? If you lose in your conference semis, how do you justify playing for the national title?
LikeLike
@Brian: To be clear, this is not my favored system. I think a mini 4-team “mini-playoff” in the conference is silly for a whole bunch of reasons. I was trying to show the absurdity that would result if the proffered reasoning were taken to its conclusion.
LikeLike
Frank,
With the first census data dropping today, are you considering looking at future demographics and how that might impact realignment?
LikeLike
Follow up thought:
I wonder how much different a 2022 (or 2023) census would be, post-COVID. Would those 600,000+ deaths (and climbing) shift any congressional seats? The deaths are becoming very regional.
LikeLike
ASU and UA getting crossed off as SEC bridge schools to USC?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/asu-nau-ua-will-require-masks-in-all-classrooms-in-possible-defiance-of-state-law/ar-AANd1hn?ocid=uxbndlbing
LikeLike
I don’t think they ever were options (USC wants the old P8 members if anyone), but yes the left/right, blue/red divide does fit into the culture category.
LikeLike
BYU is using NIL to bypass scholarship limits. They now have 123 players.
“Built’s individual multi-year NIL agreements with BYU players include compensation to all members of the team, including compensation to all walk-on players in the amount comparable to the costs of tuition for the academic year.”
https://byucougars.com/story/football/1297331/byu-football-touts-groundbreaking-nil-agreements-built-brands
LikeLike
That’s a smart move and it does not violate Title IX. Title IX literally states: ” No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
LikeLike
…as long as an approximately equal number of women are able to take advantage of this system it would probably be T9 ok. Allowing an equal number of women to evade ncaa scholarship limits is why T9 exists…🙄
LikeLike
ccrider55, Title IX says what it says, not what you spin it to mean. Your ‘equal scholarships’ is BS. Are we going to have equal scholarships for trans? Blacks? Asians? Muslims? Inuits?
LikeLike
Through the history of T9 the proportionality prong (of the three possible) has been close to the only method courts have used to determine compliance.
I’m pretty sure there are plenty other grounds to go to court if a school chose to discriminate based on your other proposed categories, rather than trying to morph T9.
LikeLike
No court has ever ruled that colleges must give equal numbers of athletic scholarships or, for that matter, academic scholarships, to men and women. That is something that colleges decided to do, not something that was mandated.
LikeLike
Colin,
The federal government and the courts have very much mandated proportional opportunities in athletics, including scholarships. But the scholarship issue is complicated by NCAA rules which limit what schools can do.
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1424&context=sportslaw
Cohen v. Brown University, perhaps one of the best known Title IX cases, is a good example. In 1991, Brown University decided to eliminate women’s volleyball and gymnastics, as well as men’s golf and water polo, in a belt-tightening move. The women sued and obtained a preliminary injunction to restore the women’s teams. The plaintiff’s proof was simple-both before and after the cuts, the number of female intercollegiate athletes at Brown University continued to lag behind the percentage of women in the general student body. After two appeals to the First Circuit and a denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court, Brown University finally threw in the towel. Brown University’s failure to convince the Supreme Court to reexamine the mechanical approach of the proportionality standard was understood by most as the loss of both the battle and the war.
LikeLike
Colin
My primary sport, having lost scores of wrestling programs (men’s) over five decades and watched and followed, (and joined as best a non lawyer can) battles fought over T9, I’d express my opinion of yours, but I value quite a few of the posters opinions and knowledge on Frank’s blog, and prefer to continue being allowed to participate.
So, here is one of hundreds of cases. This one not involving wrestling.
“Kelley v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, 1994: Male swimmers sue after Illinois drops men’s swimming but not women’s swimming, citing budget constraints and Title IX considerations. The courts, however, rule Illinois can cut the men’s program because it still provides more athletic opportunities for men than for women.“
LikeLike
I am sure they will not be the last.
LikeLike
And of course, “How does this affect Rice”?
The 11.7 scholarship limit in college baseball is effectively dead. Within two years every SEC team will be paying the scholarships for 30 or more ‘walk-ons’. We won’t be able to keep up.
LikeLike
Loki,
If BYU can do it through a corporate partner, how about Rice does it through a charity. Most of the donations go to scholarships for poor kids from Houston, the other half to baseball players and other non-revenue sports (MBB and CFB if that much gets donated). Charities can advertise, and that’s what the players do – promos to get more donations.
LikeLike
Why limit it to individual schools? Could a conference bundle a package guaranteeing region wide visibility? (Levels the playing field somewhat that was the intent of scholarship limits).
LikeLike
Why would the big boys give away their advantage this way?
LikeLike
Same reason they agreed to scholarship limits? Ostensibly to level playing field but also (primarily?) to end the inflating costs. There is no limit on the amount NLI can be worth.
LikeLike
They agreed to scholarship limits for 2 main reasons: 1. Title IX was making football very expensive and 2. they were outnumbered by the other schools who wanted a more level playing field.
But if you help everyone else, you could equally spend nothing.
LikeLike
Frank retweeted this about 11 hrs ago:
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
Alabama joins at least Ohio State and North Carolina in offering its athletes group licensing, in conjunction with using school marks, through The Brandr Group.
I expect plenty more of these types of announcements.
LikeLike
Loki,
Returning to the day of Oklahoma, Texas, USC, etc stockpiling talent so that starters are all upper class men and there is no fall off as they “graduate”, or go pro. Revenge of the mid last century.
Isn’t there a daddy warbucks among the Rice alumni that could vault the owls back into contention?
LikeLike
How about former Rice players like Lance Berkman? Or super rich people like John Doerr (chairman of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins) or the Kochs (the dad went there).
LikeLike
It’s not that we don’t have some rich alums, but it is a numbers game. Texas probably had twelve billionaires for every one of ours. Stanford too. We were just such a small school for so long. My graduating class at Rice was about half the size of my high school graduating class. aTm has more students now than we have living alumni.
LikeLike
Get enough donations and the interest would cover everyone in the future. Heck, tap into that sweet endowment money (kidding – I think schools can’t participate in NIL). 100 full rides would be round off error in Rice’s account.
LikeLike
Rice does now have an endowment for Athletics. The head coach is now the “Dunlevie Family Head Football Coach”. We’re following the Stanford model, but two decades or so too late. I believe Stanford now has over $250mm in athletic endowment with every coach an endowed position.
LikeLike
Loki,
Stanford was at 270M almost 10 years ago.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/bayarea/amp/Huge-endowment-helps-Stanford-No-1-program-has-2580442.php
LikeLike
It really only just takes one billionaire that’s committed to the cause and a bunch of other families near that bracket to help.
Look at Northwestern with a half the major buildings named after the Ryan family (Ryan Field, Ryan Fieldhouse, Welsh-Ryan arena) and lots of other stuff named after him because he’s probably spent upwards to a half-billion on facilities.
We’re expecting him to spend $100-150 million on our stadium for a renovation at some point if we go for a big $300-400 million renovation.
Knight at Oregon, Boone at Oklahoma State same thing.
LikeLike
loki
I heard a guy named Elon has moved in your area about 100 miles south. Rice might want to give him a try.
LikeLike
Ah, the joy of unintended consequences. How many walk-ons do you think Alabama can have by next year? 500? This could take us right back to the 70s and earlier when the kings stockpiled talent just to keep them away from other schools.
But I believe the rules still limit a team to 105 players in the off-season (from last game until the first game or start of fall classes). Still, 1 free semester each year helps.
LikeLike
New off season private training programs popping up headed by “not officially a school coach” to prepare the over the limit walkons
To be ready when school actually starts. That’d never happen…
LikeLike
Or do it through the “club” team. Or start finding a G5 partner to act as your AAA club. OSU puts their extra players at the local MAC schools and calls them up during the season as needed/wanted.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2021/08/12/pac-12-teams-face-forfeit-covid-19-outbreak/8110981002/
P12 teams must forfeit if they have a COVID outbreak.
The Pac-12 is the first major conference to formally announce such a policy, but it is unlikely to be the last. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said last month at the league’s football media days that games this season would not be rescheduled, strongly suggesting forfeits were possible, though the conference has yet to make that official.
“That means your team needs to be healthy to compete,” Sankey said. “If not, that game won’t be rescheduled. And thus, to dispose of the game, the forfeit word comes up at this point.”
I think all P5 conference will end up with a similar policy on this.
LikeLike
Not so sure everyone will agree to forfeits. Forfeits mean there is no TV inventory and I’d imagine ESPN/FS/CBS will want give backs if they don’t have game to televise and advertising to sell.
LikeLike
The networks will want compensation even if the game is delayed; inventory is time sensitive. Simple solution is like the NFL: Take away the game checks, or for college a share of the offending school’s distribution. With limited rescheduling there will be an incentive for the teams to minimize the risk. A college coach will not want a walk-on infecting his star quarterback and causing a forfeit. So even if the risk is tolerated for stars, the lower a player is on the depth chart the more likely a vaccine will be required to stay on the team.
LikeLike
It doesn’t work that way. Networks get a certain number of games. They aren’t promised anything about who is in those games. There are more games some weeks than others due to OOC games and bye weeks, and this would be no different.
If one school forfeits a lot of games, the conference might look at punishing them.
LikeLike
“ Jon Wilner
@wilnerhotline
·
10h
Note on this: The financial loss (i.e., TV revenue) resulting from a forfeiture will be shared by all the schools.”
LikeLike
That may be the plan for now, but if 1 school forfeits 8 games and everyone else combines for 2 things might change.
And if the P12N can absorb the lost games, there won’t even be a loss. Who would even know if the P12N didn’t show a game?
LikeLike
Oh, I’d expect some form of punishment may be debated, especially if it’s at a school lagging on vaccination. But we’re entering a very high risk for spread even among the vaccinated with a huge population wishing the problem away. Not sure how you can assign blame beyond those who don’t take the obvious precautions.
I’m not going to games this year. I don’t care to sit in Darwin’s waiting room. And I don’t really care to become an unknowing spreader (potential execution).
LikeLike
The P5 have plenty of games. They may not show as many on the conference networks. And ESPN might have to air some things they planned to put on ESPN+ (like some G5 games), but they’ll find a way. It probably means fewer games in those awkward times nobody likes.
And if massive cancellations have to happen, they’ll deal with it like they did for last year. Colleges have less flexibility for rescheduling than the NFL and the networks understand that.
LikeLike
This ought to be of great interest to the group here: a Rose Bowl memo to the Big Ten and Pac-12 from April that outlines what it would want in an expanded 8-team and 12-team playoff system:
This will likely be the basis of a new full post, but my initial thoughts is that we’ll end up with a combination of requests #2 and #4 now that the consensus is a 12-team playoff.
LikeLike
It sounds like they basically want what they have now or have had in the past. They’ll get some of it, but not all. Many fans would like to see #2 return for the big bowls. #4 seems likely. #1 sounds like continuing to do what they have been doing, so that has a decent chance. #3 is the toughest for me because I’d like to see some other sites in the mix, especially some northern/midwestern domes. The SEC shouldn’t have 3/4 of all the title games in their footprint (Miami, NO, Dallas) with none in the B10’s.
LikeLike
@Brian – #2 is interesting since it’s a preference that also encompasses a key concession on the part of the Rose Bowl: they would be getting one of *either* the Big Ten or Pac-12 champs in the new playoff system going forward, but not *both* of them.
That position makes it a whole lot easier for the overall system to accommodate the Rose Bowl with the Big Ten and Pac-12 receiving rotating access but also opening the game up to all other leagues every year (so the Rose wouldn’t be looked at as getting “special treatment” to the perceived detriment of everyone outside of the Big Ten/Pac-12 in the way it has in the past). Frankly, with the way that the 12-team playoff proposal is set up with the top 4 conference champs receiving byes, this was already along the lines of what I was thinking what would happen if the Rose Bowl became a permanent quarterfinal (with my main difference being that it would be the higher of either the Big Ten or Pac-12 champ going to the Rose).
I agree that #3 is the least likely. If anything, it directly conflicts with #4 in making the Rose Bowl into a quarterfinal in its traditional NYD time slot. My guess is that this was the Rose Bowl trying to cover all bases where if the new system ended up having semifinals on or around NYD in the same way as the current CFP system, then they’d get preferential access to those games just like today. (As I noted before, this memo was sent back in April before the formal 12-team playoff recommendation, so the Rose was likely looking at a lot more possible scenarios and schedules where, for instance, 2 rounds of the playoffs would be played prior to NYD as opposed to only the first round.)
LikeLike
#2 is interesting since it’s a preference that also encompasses a key concession on the part of the Rose Bowl: they would be getting one of *either* the Big Ten or Pac-12 champs in the new playoff system going forward, but not *both* of them.
Is that much of a concession? The Rose Bowl long ago stopped being a guaranteed meeting of the Pac-10 champ and the Big Ten champ. In two of the last four games, neither team was from those conferences. In the playoff era, even when the game features teams from those leagues, frequently at least one did not win its conference (i.e., the Rose Bowl is a consolation prize).
LikeLike
I see no reason why the Rose shouldn’t get B10 vs P12 as long as they both make the quarterfinal round and 1 of them is top 4. Screw the highly flawed rankings, it doesn’t need to be 1/8, 2/7, 3/6 and 4/5. Likewise the Orange and Sugar should try to preserve their ties.
LikeLike
Amen
LikeLike
“… now that the consensus is a 12-team playoff.”
The recommendation from espn et al and the media flurry that followed is, but do we know the consensus of those who will actually decide?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – That’s a fair point, although I strongly believe that once the tizzy we’re all in from the UT/OU to SEC move calms down and we’re back to focusing on the playoff, I’d be *really* surprised if the 12-team playoff gets backtracked at all. As much as people want to point out that the SEC might be getting the benefit of more at-large bids, virtually everyone else actually needs playoff expansion even more than the SEC (both financially and in terms of access).
LikeLike
Frank,
I think expansion is likely, but I don’t know that 12 will be the result now. They never got into the details of how to do 12, and as they get into that they may decide they can’t find a solution everyone will support. Then they might fall back to 8 as it eliminates a round and still doubles access. All the easy agreement came when there was a true P5. Do they still want to guarantee 6 champs if that’s likely to mean 2 G5s? Would they be more comfortable with 4?
The move may just change the details of how it is setup, but I think many of the schools are now thinking deeply about what all could change during the period of the contract and the possible repercussions. There better be at least some changes from the initial plan.
LikeLike
The G5 are going to veto if you go back to 4 or 5 champs in the proposal. The surviving Big 12 may end up better than the Big East 3.0 was. And the BE 3.0 was usually stronger than a couple of the other BCS 6 even if it didn’t have the name brands.
LikeLike
They could try to, but they ultimately need something passed more than anyone. They P5 can draw a line at 4 champs and say otherwise, the CFP stays at 4 or even goes away. Will the G5 really veto an expansion that gives them more money and more access, including a way to get their champs in?
LikeLike
Wilner with some PAC12 notes of interest.
How likely is a Pac-12/Big Ten alliance? Would Fox (or CBS) see it as a potential counterweight to the ESPN/SEC juggernaut? — @EngelKRichard
I’m not sure the likelihood of an alliance is quite 50-50, but there’s a reasonable chance something materializes.
Fox will undoubtedly seek ways to strengthen its foothold in college football, partly because of ESPN’s ever-expanding influence and partly because Fox’s investment in the Big 12 will plunge in value once Texas and Oklahoma leave the conference.
The network chess pieces are a critical component to realignment: ESPN’s inventory has grown immeasurably in value with SEC expansion, while Fox’s inventory became dramatically less valuable.
If the network is motivated to recoup lost ground, then strengthening its two remaining properties, the Pac-12 and Big Ten — Fox is not involved with the ACC — is an obvious option.
Other than a one game a year scheduling alliance I can’t think of anything that will move the needle too much.
What becomes of the Pac 12 Network? It was gutted over the last couple of years. Any guesses on what the future is? — Michael Pilney
The Pac-12 Networks should be close to pre-COVID form during the upcoming season, at least in terms of the quantity of football content on the linear networks.
[snip]
Longer term, the future is muddled. We suspect the networks will survive the next round of media rights negotiations, if only because the Pac-12 will need an avenue to broadcast its Olympics sports.
(It could very well be a digital-only platform, by the way.)
However, the Hotline would be more than a tad surprised if any football games are broadcast on the Pac-12 Networks 2.0. That content carries too much value to be kept in house, and unseen.
If the PTN goes digital, I think there should be Football on it. I would put the “Tier 3” games on it to help sell subscriptions.
LikeLike
I just don’t get how a Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance can be structured in a way that works for FOX and the Big Ten that isn’t significantly less optimal than some form of a merger of the best 6-8 schools out of the Pac-12 with the Big Ten.
I get that the Big Ten and those schools may not want that (or realize they could want that), but the FOX TV number crunchers should realize that there’s no other way to really create significant additional value than that form of a merger.
I get that may not be a realistic choice for USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon (those 4 are the most valuable by far), but at some point FOX has to look at the landscape and realize there’s no way to counter the enlarged SEC other than to help create a Big Ten that separates college football into a big two AFC/NFC kind of situation with a pending split up of the ACC in the early 2030s.
Big Ten schools already schedule marquee opponents in the non-conference; Ohio State literally has a marquee team every single year for the next 13 years: Oregon x3, ND x2, Texas x2, Alabama x2, Washington x2, Georgia x2
That’s 5 games against Oregon/Washington out of 13 with only USC missing of the 3 teams most people would care about… but USC already has ND every year so kind of understandable they wouldn’t want to add Ohio State as an 11th game…
And both conferences are at 9 games with USC/Stanford already having ND scheduled every year.
Reducing schedules to 8 conference games doesn’t help the Big Ten; just means our schools meet Ohio State/Michigan/Nebraska/Penn State/Wisconsin less in crossover games; how does that help.
USC + 5-7 coming to the Big Ten is as financially obvious a move for both the Big Ten and those schools as UT/OU going to the SEC. It may not happen because distances are broader and there’s more moving parts out there, but this is just about the best time possible for it to ever happen.
And as a final thing, could basically guarantee the Big Ten champion is placed in the Rose Bowl every year as a quarter final if the Big Ten goes for the 12 team CFP.
LikeLike
z33k,
“I just don’t get how a Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance can be structured in a way that works for FOX and the Big Ten that isn’t significantly less optimal than some form of a merger of the best 6-8 schools out of the Pac-12 with the Big Ten.”
That all depends on what you consider “optimal,” I suppose. Expanding to 20+ in itself is far from optimal. The B10 schools make no more money and play each other less often? Or make a tiny bit more at the cost of losing contact with each other? How is that optimal?
“I get that the Big Ten and those schools may not want that (or realize they could want that),”
Which makes it sub-optimal.
“but the FOX TV number crunchers should realize that there’s no other way to really create significant additional value than that form of a merger.”
Who says Fox wants to pay a lot more money for the B10 and P12 rights?
“I get that may not be a realistic choice for USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon (those 4 are the most valuable by far), but at some point FOX has to look at the landscape and realize there’s no way to counter the enlarged SEC other than to help create a Big Ten that separates college football into a big two AFC/NFC kind of situation with a pending split up of the ACC in the early 2030s.”
There are always other options. And Fox isn’t in competition with the SEC. Fox should be more worried about getting the part or all of the CFP rights.
“And both conferences are at 9 games with USC/Stanford already having ND scheduled every year.
Reducing schedules to 8 conference games doesn’t help the Big Ten; just means our schools meet Ohio State/Michigan/Nebraska/Penn State/Wisconsin less in crossover games; how does that help.”
Or the B10/P12 game becomes the 9th game, and the B10 switches to locked rivals from divisions. Then the B10 teams could actually play each other more often than now. Not sure how much money it would make for anyone, though.
“USC + 5-7 coming to the Big Ten is as financially obvious a move for both the Big Ten and those schools as UT/OU going to the SEC.”
No, it isn’t. There’s nothing obvious about it at all. There is zero evidence that the B10 would make more money that way. Make the financial case.
“It may not happen because distances are broader and there’s more moving parts out there, but this is just about the best time possible for it to ever happen.”
Something else I disagree with. Around 2030 would be better.
LikeLike
I think the financial case will be pretty easy to make just like it was for Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers. At least I can see how the numbers should work for TV people:
USC/Washington/Oregon are all nationally resonating schools (USC a king, Washington/Oregon as princes); if you add those 3 as part of a group of 6 (or 7-8 depending on the numbers), you’re basically guaranteed to increase the average quality of Big Ten football matchups if those 6 new teams are playing 24 games against current Big Ten squads in exchange for current Big Ten squads playing each other 24 less games. And you’re creating a lot of nationally resonating matchups in there: 5 games involve those 6 Pac-12 teams playing Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State, another 5-7 involve them playing Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska/Michigan State.
And BTN should be able to do a much better of monetizing those states than Pac-12 Networks with FOX doing the negotiating.
It’s hard for me to imagine that the right # doesn’t work fairly easily and expand the pie.
Now distances are a problem; I get that, and I do think that those schools especially Oregon/Washington may have a bigger problem leaving their brothers behind than Oklahoma given the Pac-12 would be cut in half or worse and they may not be included in an aggregation with the Big 12.
I think Frank would argue that the right choice of 4-6 Pac-12 schools (starting with USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon) is a beyond obvious moneymaker even if the decisionmakers don’t want to do it for other reasons.
LikeLike
If the Big 10 wants to be the Big 10 +1+1+2+6, the best way is to wait another 10-15 years and peel off 6 ACC schools. At that point the dollars would mean they could definitely get a yes from anybody but ND, UNC, UVA and Duke. And they might from them. So they get similar added value with drastically less travel than a west coast deal.
LikeLike
z33k,
“I think the financial case will be pretty easy to make just like it was for Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers. At least I can see how the numbers should work for TV people:”
UMD and RU brought BTN subscribers. NE brought a brand and bordered the footprint.
“USC/Washington/Oregon are all nationally resonating schools (USC a king, Washington/Oregon as princes);”
If they are winning big. Look at P12 TV ratings. These schools don’t resonate nationally unless they’re great.
“if you add those 3 as part of a group of 6 (or 7-8 depending on the numbers),”
The P12 gets paid a lot less than the B10 and it already has these 6-8 schools in it. Your basically assuming the other 4-6 have literally 0 value, and even then this group would basically just match what the B10 already pays.
“you’re basically guaranteed to increase the average quality of Big Ten football matchups if those 6 new teams are playing 24 games against current Big Ten squads in exchange for current Big Ten squads playing each other 24 less games.”
1. That’s losing 24 B10 games to add what are essentially OOC games.
2. Half the B10 is kings or princes right now, so you are trading like for like in many of these games. PU vs USC is no better than PU vs UM. For every PSU vs UW, you lose an OSU vs Wi.
B10: 4 kings + 3 princes + 7 others
Add: 1 king + 2 princes + 3-5 others
Result: 5 kings + 5 princes + 10-12 others
It ends up exactly the same, but with more travel. Add in all the other sports, and you’re looking at $5M per year per school in extra travel costs.
“And you’re creating a lot of nationally resonating matchups in there:”
The B10 already beats the P12’s TV ratings.
“And BTN should be able to do a much better of monetizing those states than Pac-12 Networks with FOX doing the negotiating.”
Maybe, maybe not. If the fans don’t care enough (and all the evidence shows they don’t), the carriers will fight back. It was tough to get full carriage in the true B10 footprint, and Comcast fought hard on the eastern expansion. If people don’t care as much and there are fewer fans anyway, the providers can refuse to put it on basic cable.
“It’s hard for me to imagine that the right # doesn’t work fairly easily and expand the pie.”
I have less faith in Californians all paying for BTN to get the 7% of the coverage on schools they know.
“I think Frank would argue that the right choice of 4-6 Pac-12 schools (starting with USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon) is a beyond obvious moneymaker even if the decisionmakers don’t want to do it for other reasons.”
I want to see someone make that financial case. Because I don’t see it, and that’s before considering the dilution of rivalries and all the games nobody will care about.
LikeLike
I think Frank would argue that the right choice of 4-6 Pac-12 schools (starting with USC/UCLA/Washington/Oregon) is a beyond obvious moneymaker even if the decisionmakers don’t want to do it for other reasons.
It is quite the opposite. He has already said that this combination doesn’t make much sense to him.
LikeLike
Brian my point (and I think the point of anybody else arguing for 6-8 from the Pac-12) is that their TV ratings would rise dramatically in the Big Ten.
Look at USC/UCLA’s schedule:
USC plays the other 3 Cali schools + Utah/Colorado/Arizona State/Arizona + 2 out of Washington/Oregon/Washington State/Oregon State (i.e. 1 of Washington/Oregon + 1 of Washington State/Oregon State).
Their average schedule in the Big Ten would be: 3 Cali schools + Washington + Oregon + 2 from Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan State + 2 from the rest of the Big Ten.
If you weigh it properly, it comes down to something like 3 Cali schools + Washington + Oregon + Michigan + Wisconsin + Northwestern + Rutgers (a reasonably representative mix of what it might look like in an average year).
You’re basically substituting that Oregon State/Washington State game + Utah/Colorado/Arizona/Arizona State for Oregon/Michigan/Wisconsin/Northwestern/Rutgers.
That’s a vast scheduling improvement.
The TV ratings for a Big Ten (20 team) schedule for USC would be much higher since they drop the Washington State/Oregon State game and annual games against the other 4 south teams for 4 Big Ten games that are much higher quality on average. There’s nothing like the top half of the Big Ten in that south division. That’s my point.
LikeLike
@Marc
I’m talking about a TV point of view.
Yes I get that travel involved would increase costs by around a couple million per year probably per team in the Pac-12, but that’s easily mitigated by the financial increase.
The TV schedules for a USC as part of a 6 team set going to the Big Ten would probably see dramatically higher ratings.
They play a lot of poor quality games right now in the current Pac-12 division setup compared to what they’d get.
Maybe their schedules would be too loaded though in what I’m considering.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Brian my point (and I think the point of anybody else arguing for 6-8 from the Pac-12) is that their TV ratings would rise dramatically in the Big Ten.”
Okay, so let’s examine that.
“USC plays the other 3 Cali schools + Utah/Colorado/Arizona State/Arizona + 2 out of Washington/Oregon/Washington State/Oregon State (i.e. 1 of Washington/Oregon + 1 of Washington State/Oregon State).
Their average schedule in the Big Ten would be: 3 Cali schools + Washington + Oregon + 2 from Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan State + 2 from the rest of the Big Ten.”
Plus the same 3 OOC games they already play. So 7 of their 12 games are the exact same as now, meaning the TV ratings on those won’t change at all.
So now it is the other 5 games that must carry all of this dramatic increase.
“You’re basically substituting that Oregon State/Washington State game + Utah/Colorado/Arizona/Arizona State for Oregon/Michigan/Wisconsin/Northwestern/Rutgers.
That’s a vast scheduling improvement.”
Assuming 5 locked P12 rivals, they’d have 4 games against B10 teams. The B10 has 4 kings, 3 princes and 7 others. So on average they’d play 1 king, 1 prince and 2 others as you show.
But USC vs a P12 other would equal or outdraw USC vs a B10 other. There’s more connection there for USC fans and it makes no difference to national fans. So that’s now 9 of 12 games drawing equal ratings. So that leaves just 3 games to provide this dramatic improvement.
1. UO instead of OrSU or WSU
2. B10 king instead of a P12 other
3. B10 prince instead of a P12 other
So that’s a KK + 2KP games instead of 3 KO. That will certainly help. But this is only looking at it from the USC point of view. Let’s look at the whole B10 schedule.
B10: 4 kings + 3 princes + 7 others = 29% kings, 21% princes, 50% others
Add: 1 king + 2 princes + 3 others = 17% kings, 33% princes, 50% others
Result: 5 kings + 5 princes + 10 others = 25% kings, 25% princes, 50% others
It ends up about the same, but with more travel. Add in all the other sports, and you’re looking at $5M per year per school in extra travel costs.
The only way to get a net boost would be to re-implement parity-based scheduling so the big brands play each other more often, but that further reduces the ties that bind that conference.
This also assumes that P12 other vs B10 other isn’t even worse for ratings than when they play familiar foes.
“The TV ratings for a Big Ten (20 team) schedule for USC would be much higher since they drop the Washington State/Oregon State game and annual games against the other 4 south teams for 4 Big Ten games that are much higher quality on average. There’s nothing like the top half of the Big Ten in that south division. That’s my point.”
But you ignore the schedules for everyone else in this analysis. That’s my point.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Yes I get that travel involved would increase costs by around a couple million per year probably per team in the Pac-12, but that’s easily mitigated by the financial increase.”
UMD said it was more like $3M when they joined. The P12 schools would be travelling a lot further and prices have gone up. Plus the P12 have a lot of sports teams. The saving grace for them is that several are things the B10 doesn’t play.
LikeLike
I get that the Big Ten and those schools may not want [a merger] (or realize they could want that), but the FOX TV number crunchers should realize that there’s no other way to really create significant additional value than that form of a merger.
This idea has had plenty of media airplay, so it’s inconceivable that the Big Ten doesn’t realize it exists. If they don’t pursue a merger, it’s because the numbers just aren’t what you imagine them to be.
LikeLike
If you look at the possible scheduling, it just becomes obvious that the TV side of the equation would work:
Look at USC’s current scheduling vs what it would be in a division of 6 joined to the Big Ten.
Just pasting from above, it’s effectively: “You’re basically substituting that Oregon State/Washington State game + Utah/Colorado/Arizona/Arizona State for Oregon or Washington + Michigan/Wisconsin/Northwestern/Rutgers.”
I could see USC being a top 10 TV rating draw every year with that kind of schedule, and the TV schedules of Washington and Oregon would also improve measurably.
They only play USC/UCLA every other year at the moment, which would switch to being annual games.
And then they’d get to play 4 games against Big Ten teams, 2 drawn from the top half which includes Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa/Michigan State.
The TV side of the equation just seems obvious when you look at the actual scheduling changes that would result from separating the 4 Cali schools + Oregon/Washington from the rest and giving them round robin schedules among those 6 + 4 Big Ten games.
Now I’d assume that the other half of the equation here (breaking apart the Pac-12 which the Big Ten has always worked closely with) and separating these schools that have been together a long time, etc. is the tough part and dealing with the issue of long cross-country travel is the reason it won’t be considered. I can understand that.
LikeLike
z33k,
“If you look at the possible scheduling, it just becomes obvious that the TV side of the equation would work:”
No, it doesn’t. Repeating that doesn’t make it true.
“Look at USC’s current scheduling vs what it would be in a division of 6 joined to the Big Ten.”
How about we look at all 20 schools, not just 1? You never mention Cal or Stanford when hyping the TV ratings bump this would drive. I wonder why? The 20 team conference has the same proportion of brands as the B10 has now, so the B10 would see no improvement. It could help the P12 schools, but there is no obvious gain for the B10.
Then there’s this:
“Now I’d assume that the other half of the equation here (breaking apart the Pac-12 which the Big Ten has always worked closely with) and separating these schools that have been together a long time, etc. is the tough part and dealing with the issue of long cross-country travel”
LikeLike
Formerly referred to by the Bobblehead Boys Club as pie-in-the-sky lunacy. It will happen because it must happen. There can only be one counter balance to ESPN (SEC) and their determination to control college athletics. That is why an alliance solves nothing. Two separate entities is a house divided. The B1G must remain on the same brand/market value footing as the SEC or it is at great risk to be poached itself in the near future. Yes, NEWS FLASH : The little brown jug is not the eye of Sauron. The Big Ten is not invincible. Laugh if you like (and some shortsighted scolds on here will) but the minute the B1G becomes a second class citizen, they become woefully vulnerable. No one wants to get left behind, and you can get Ohio State won’t be. Frank (God bless him, great blog) seems to believe the B1G has no realistic options. I believe that’s unsustainable. We’ll know by ’25.
LikeLike
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.
“It will happen because it must happen.”
That has never been true about anything.
“There can only be one counter balance to ESPN (SEC) and their determination to control college athletics.”
No, there could be many. Fox or Apple or … could get some or all of the rights to the expanded CFP. The SEC could lose power over time. Other conferences could rise.
“The B1G must remain on the same brand/market value footing as the SEC or it is at great risk to be poached itself in the near future.”
What a load. OSU and UM aren’t going anywhere. NE has lost much of its brand value. I doubt PSU wants to join the SEC either, but they have relatively weaker ties to the B10. I’d be more worried if the ACC was the dominant conference, because then the eastern wing might be vulnerable.
Come back in 2025 and admit you were wrong. We’ll be here.
LikeLike
Kevin Warren is that you? Tell me Socrates, did you eat today? How about last week? If so, why? Could it be because you had to to survive? Nature and history are replete with examples of things occurring because they must. You are obviously so emotionally invested in the status quo (Big Tendinitis) that even my prediction, based on a rapidly changing media landscape, inflames you. Six months ago it was unthinkable that Texas would prostrate themselves to the level of the SEC, and yet, behind the scenes, it was a done deal. No one saw that coming. Why would the richest, most powerful athletic department in the country (and AAU member) need the SEC? Point being, neither of us knows what’s going to happen, but I’ll bet on the (scant) predictability of market forces over your retrograde presumptions anyday. No offense.
LikeLike
I don’t care about your prediction. It’s the statement of fact that it must happen that bothers me (really, the ignorance behind the statement).
It hasn’t been unthinkable that UT would join the SEC for years. Many people thought it a solid possibility this round. Most were surprised they announced it 4 years in advance, though.
UT doesn’t need the SEC, they wanted the SEC.
“Point being, neither of us knows what’s going to happen”
Says the person who just stated that the largest realignment in the history of I-A not only must happen, but it must happen in the next 4 years.
I never said nothing will change. But OSU won’t leave the B10 in the next 4 years. Neither will anyone else. And there won’t be 2 superconferences by 2025 either.
LikeLike
I agree that the B1G does not “have” to do anything, unless it will clearly help. If the new contract for the B1G is $70 million or so per team, and the SEC is at $80 million or so, it will not be the end of the world. The contracts may well be closer than that.
There is nothing in the B12 leftovers that should interest the B1G, unless Fox, or whomever, declares that adding Kansas will add sufficient value to the next contract. Nothing should happen for a couple of years, at least.
The PAC12 contract GOR is the next to open up. If the B1G could get USC and say cherry pick three other schools (UCLA, UO, UW?) the numbers might work, but once you get to 6, there has to be dead weight. Who are the other three? Stanford or Cal and? Are AZ or CO really going to bring in enough extra money?
I do think that it is even feasible to consider USC and less than 3 other schools, so that the Trojans do not have to spend their lives going cross country. Even 3 might not be enough for them to move.
Again, I would expect serious conversations between the B1G and Fox (and maybe others) about whether the West Coast will offer enough extra money to support a nationwide conference. Somehow the volleyball team travelling 2500 miles for a game might not be that attractive. I guess that the USC or UCLA baseball team could have an eastern tour every few years with games against PSU, UMD and RU. In addition to the actual travel distance, three hour time changes seem kind of important also.
Could there be football only members from the west coast? That might work, if those schools that are football only in the BIG, find good homes for their other teams. Could that happen? I doubt it.
The moment of truth probably should come in ten years or so when the ACC teams are about to be available, unless they get a much bigger contract. Right now the Tallahassee press is speculating about some sort of alliance between the B1G and the ACC. Of course, they only look at it one way and never seem to be concerned about whether that might help the B1G.
LikeLike
Athletic reporting that Big Ten/Pac-12/ACC are having discussions on an alliance of sorts (at least the 3 commissioners are talking):
https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-pac-12-acc-in-discussions-about-forming-alliance-sources/1Fv1mfs4guai
I’ll wait and see what comes out of it, but I’m deeply skeptical that alliances can create more money in the pot for the conferences (which is the biggest thing that matters). There’s no alliance that can equate to adding a valuable school (or set of schools) to a conference. USC/Clemson/FSU already have annual non-conference rivalries. ACC is already giving 5 non-con games to ND so it’s almost at 9 games locked for most teams on average.
I still feel like right now we’re just waiting for the Big Ten/FOX to really open up discussions on the next media contract. That’s probably when the Big Ten will really dig into what future scenarios for the conference look like, especially with the playoff expansion also coming online soon after that.
Everything else feels like re-arranging the deck chairs.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/32017916/sources-pac-12-big-ten-acc-preliminary-discussions-forming-alliance-likely-scheduling
ESPN.com has it, too.
The Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC have had preliminary discussions about forming an alliance, likely built around scheduling but possibly other areas, sources told ESPN.
Commissioners George Kliavkoff (Pac-12), Kevin Warren (Big Ten) and Jim Phillips (ACC) have been in regular communication, and have also had some in-person discussions. Kliavkoff and Warren were together this week for Rose Bowl meetings. Pac-12 sources said all three commissioners met last week in Chicago.
“I’ve been in frequent and regular contact with all of the other A5 commissioners the last few weeks about the four or five complex issues that are facing our industry,” Kliavkoff told ESPN on Friday night. “Anything beyond that is just speculation, and I can’t comment on it.”
…
Sources said the Big 12 is not currently included in discussions surrounding an alliance with other Power 5 conferences. Bowlsby told the Texas state senate on Aug. 2 that he thought there “are options for us to partner with other conferences. There may be opportunity for mergers.”
Athletic directors in two of the leagues discussing an alliance told ESPN that nonconference scheduling likely would be the focus, but that there aren’t many details yet. The SEC’s addition of Texas and Oklahoma, plus commissioner Greg Sankey’s involvement in proposing a 12-team expanded College Football Playoff model, has been seen as an attempt to consolidate power.
“There is some alignment in us against them a little bit,” a Power 5 athletic director said.
OOC scheduling can help a little. If the top brands play each other, all 3 conferences win financially. Perhaps more importantly, if everyone agree not to play the SEC (except the locked rivalries – you know they won’t/can’t cancel those) it could weaken them a tad. Let the SEC play the B12 remnants and the G5. Refuse to play the neutral site kickoff games against them. Ostracize them, basically.
I don’t know why you assume they aren’t looking at future scenarios. They are always discussing that. But maybe their experts don’t see the value in adding half of the P12.
LikeLike
Well, the most important thing I think they all realize (probably Phillips over at the ACC) is to get the CFP into a bidding war between media groups.
It just seems foolish to have all the eggs in the ESPN basket when ESPN is most interested in just promoting the SEC.
FOX/CBS/NBC should have a chance to bid on games if the playoff is expanded. I think if the 3 conferences hold together on that, it could have a significant impact.
Everything else I’m somewhat skeptical on; look at Ohio State for example; they have a marquee non-conference game scheduled every year through 2033, and a half of those are SEC teams.
I don’t think trying to prevent people from scheduling the SEC is the right approach if that’s even brought up (doubt it), but I do think encouraging teams to play other teams from the 3 conferences isn’t a bad idea where possible.
But like I said, I think slowing the CFP expansion and getting other media groups playing ball is important.
We’ve all seen the huge impact that ESPN has had the past 10-15 years in promoting the SEC to the detriment of the rest of college football.
LikeLike
They’ve done the same with promoting the Big 10. They’ve mostly ignored the Big 12 and frequently ignored the Pac 12 since USC lost to Texas.
LikeLike
The quantity and quality of talking head time/words spent on praising the SEC vs anyone else is far from balanced. They do this in lots of sports. Rumor has it there are MLB teams that aren’t from NY, Boston or LA. The NHL magically ceased to exist when ESPN lost rights to it, then reappeared once ESPN had rights again.
LikeLike
They do plenty to promote the Big Ten and Clemson (or anybody else who’s good), but reality is they have a lot of the SEC Network guys on their morning/daily shows regularly (which is natural).
It just has a cumulative impact if you have panels and 1-2 of the guys are SEC guys while the others are more general reporters.
LikeLike
To be fair, I think every fan base everywhere thinks that the media is biased against them. For every person that complains about Yankees coverage, there’s a Yankees fan that will say the media keeps setting them up as the Evil Empire.
Even in the specific case of ESPN’s coverage of college football, almost any non-Big Ten fan that watches their most important show on that sport – College GameDay – could say that it’s Big Ten-biased when its main commentators are from Ohio State and Michigan and the guy putting on the prediction headgear is a former Indiana coach. Those spots are a lot lot more high profile than the daily ESPN talk shows and, from the outside, it can be perceived as quite Big Ten-biased.
To be honest, if people want the media to stop talking about how good the SEC is compared to their conferences, they actually need to beat the SEC when it matters in the playoffs. Nationally, people
talk about teams that are winners. As much as I’m an Illinois fan, I can’t really expect ESPN to talk about my team much unless they’re actually in the national title race for basketball (like last year) or football. The national championship race is what’s ultimately compelling and as long as the SEC has more teams in that race, they *should* get more coverage. It’s not as if though the lower tier teams in the SEC like Vandy are getting pumped it – it’s still the big brand names getting pumped up in the SEC and it just happens that the SEC has a lot more of them compared to other leagues besides maybe the Big Ten.
LikeLike
How many leagues have had an espn announcer put a cupcake on the field of a school he was ostensibly providing “neutral “ coverage for?
LikeLike
Ha!
“ Fake Dan Beebe
@DanBeebe
·
Aug 12
I wish ESPN had this much enthusiasm for sports in the middle of a cornfield when I was still commissioner of the Big 12.”
LikeLike
Frank,
“To be fair, I think every fan base everywhere thinks that the media is biased against them. For every person that complains about Yankees coverage, there’s a Yankees fan that will say the media keeps setting them up as the Evil Empire.”
Sure, but since I’m not a baseball fan I don’t have a favorite MLB team. And I can tell you that they hype NYY, NYM, BRS, CC and LAD more than others.
“Even in the specific case of ESPN’s coverage of college football, almost any non-Big Ten fan that watches their most important show on that sport – College GameDay – could say that it’s Big Ten-biased when its main commentators are from Ohio State and Michigan and the guy putting on the prediction headgear is a former Indiana coach. Those spots are a lot lot more high profile than the daily ESPN talk shows and, from the outside, it can be perceived as quite Big Ten-biased.”
1. That’s inside their CFB coverage, which only serious CFB fans watch. Look at what casual fans see – promos, SportsCenter, comments during NFL coverage, etc.
2. Herbstreit moved from OH to TN because of the fans upset with his alleged anti-OSU bias (there is evidence on both sides), though he’s coming back now so his son can play for a certain HS in Cincinnati. Corso is unfortunately a sideshow anymore and Howard was always a joke. Feel free to count the number of positives those 3 say about the SEC vs the B10 and get back to me about pro-B10 bias.
“To be honest, if people want the media to stop talking about how good the SEC is compared to their conferences, they actually need to beat the SEC when it matters in the playoffs.”
If you look, their talking heads change their tune based on what favors the SEC. Early season OOC games are how you compare conferences in a year when the SEC struggles in bowls. When the bowl results are reversed it’s suddenly the bowls that are the best way to compare conferences.
And Alabama is not the SEC. No other SEC teams has gone more than once.
“Nationally, people talk about teams that are winners.”
But they don’t treat all winners equally.
“It’s not as if though the lower tier teams in the SEC like Vandy are getting pumped it”
He says as Ole Miss just got ranked in the top 25.
LikeLike
Frank,
“To be fair, I think every fan base everywhere thinks that the media is biased against them.”
Again, that is true.
But ESPN has a history with OSU. They kept Mark May as a primary CFB talking head for years despite blatant bias. Eventually it got so bad that even ESPN had to demote him, much to the delight of many fans (not just OSU fans). And this isn’t just coming from OSU fans – neutral sites like Awful Announcing also noted his bias. And before May it was Trev Alberts with the same shtick.
“Even in the specific case of ESPN’s coverage of college football, almost any non-Big Ten fan that watches their most important show on that sport – College GameDay – could say that it’s Big Ten-biased when its main commentators are from Ohio State and Michigan and the guy putting on the prediction headgear is a former Indiana coach. Those spots are a lot lot more high profile than the daily ESPN talk shows and, from the outside, it can be perceived as quite Big Ten-biased.”
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/gameday-bias-week-1/
This is from an SEC blog:
Last season, Chris Fowler sounded off about the apparent disparity between ESPN’s coverage of the SEC compared with every other conference in college football. After he made those comments, various people went back through GameDay archives to time just how long the analysts spent talking about each conference. And indeed many found that the SEC got disproportionately more time over other conferences.
…
To see if anything has changed, we timed the first College GameDay show of the new season.
…
Let’s start with the brand new College GameDay intro. While we may have missed a few appearances due to quick cuts, here is how many major clips of each conference appeared in the intro:
SEC — 9
Big Ten — 7
ACC — 4
PAC-12 — 3
Big 12 — 3
Notre Dame — 2
…
Now for the actual show. Going into it, I predicted that the Big Ten would get a decent amount of air time. Wisconsin was involved in the title game of the show, Ohio State is defending champs, and there was no chance they would not spend at least a minute talking about Jim Harbaugh at Michigan. Baylor and TCU are currently some of the top ranked teams in the country, which means the Big 12 would get some time as well.
…
Here is the breakdown:
Conference Time Allotted
SEC – 40:24
Big Ten – 23:05
PAC-12 – 13:24
Big 12 – 10:41
Notre Dame – 6:13
BYU – 4:19
ACC – 4:02
Mid-American – 1:01
Missouri Valley – 43 secs
Mountain West – 42 secs
That’s before week 1, so nobody has won any games yet and OSU was the reigning champ.
LikeLike
Brian – to be fair, given the lack of success of the other conferences in the BCS/CFP era, it could be argued that EPSN spends too much time discussing the other inconsequential conferences. Since 1998, the B1G has been Ohio State and everybody else. The B12 has been Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Texas. The PAC – just USC and Oregon. The ACC – just Clemson & Florida State. Miami, VA Tech & Nebraska were relevant as members of their former conferences.
On the other hand, six SEC schools (18 appearances) have either won or played for the national championship. Bama 6-2, LSU 3-1, UF 2-0, AUB 1-1, Tenn 1-0, UGA 0-1.
SEC 13 NCs
Everybody else 10
17 teams have played for the national championship in the BCS/CFP era. More than one-third of those teams are SEC members.
Now, as much as it pains me to admit it, Alabama and Saban are on the greatest run in the history of CFB. One could argue that the SEC is really just Alabama and everyone else, but that’s not true.
Prior to the beginning of Alabama’s run in 2009, Tennessee won in 98, LSU in 03 & 07, UF in 06 & 08.
From 2009 going forward, Bama has won six NCs. Of the other six championships won by other schools, Auburn won in 10 and LSU won in 19. It should also be noted that LSU & UGA were runners up to Bama for two of their NCs, while Auburn was runner up to Florida State in 13.
ESPN is not subject to FEC regulations. They are not required to give equal time to all conferences. ESPN makes decisions to discuss the most relevant games of the week. When Michigan plays Ohio State, they discuss. Same with Ohio State/Penn State, Texas/Oklahoma, USC/Notre Dame, and Clemson versus the one ranked ACC team they play for the season.
On the other hand, the SEC plays a meaningful game almost every week.
LikeLike
Alan,
Yes, one could easily make that argument. But not while also arguing that ESPN equally covers all P5 conferences in CFB. Their coverage is slanted in quantity and quality towards properties they have a stake in. That’s probably good business, but it isn’t equal. And one could also argue that coverage should be somehow proportional to success, but we know that isn’t true for ESPN either as brands get more coverage and good G5 teams get very little mention. ESPN chases ratings for their programming, which again is the expected behavior of a TV network. The problem is that then ESPN stands back and claims to be a neutral observer and reporter of CFB with no bias. On it’s surface that statement is clearly a lie and it sounds like an attempt to cover up the facts of their coverage.
The reason this is a problem is because ESPN is the dominant voice in college sports. So when all their talking heads say something, it becomes the national opinion. Since ESPN has a vested interest in certain teams doing well, it becomes a conflict of interest.
“Since 1998, the B1G has been Ohio State and everybody else. The B12 has been Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Texas. The PAC – just USC and Oregon. The ACC – just Clemson & Florida State. Miami, VA Tech & Nebraska were relevant as members of their former conferences.”
How are we defining this? To most people, the SEC has been Nick Saban and everyone else.
“On the other hand, six SEC schools (18 appearances) have either won or played for the national championship. Bama 6-2, LSU 3-1, UF 2-0, AUB 1-1, Tenn 1-0, UGA 0-1.
SEC 13 NCs
Everybody else 10”
How much of that was just Nick Saban? 7 national titles with 2 schools.
Plus NCG access is based on public opinion, and ESPN sets the national agenda for coverage. They can influence who is ranked where, which then grants or denies BCS/CFP access.
“Now, as much as it pains me to admit it, Alabama and Saban are on the greatest run in the history of CFB. One could argue that the SEC is really just Alabama and everyone else, but that’s not true.”
It kind of is. It just depends on the metrics you use.
A bunch of articles showed that during the CFP era, the 12-team CFP model would’ve had 1 more B10 team than SEC team (20 to 19). One could say that belies the SEC deserving vastly more coverage than the B10.
“Prior to the beginning of Alabama’s run in 2009, Tennessee won in 98, LSU in 03 & 07, UF in 06 & 08.”
That 2003 title was Saban, and 2007 still had some of his recruits.
“ESPN is not subject to FEC regulations. They are not required to give equal time to all conferences.”
No, but they also can’t truthfully proclaim to be totally neutral and fair in their coverage.
“ESPN makes decisions to discuss the most relevant games of the week.”
To discuss what they consider the most relevant games. And when your deeply in bed with the SEC, that bleeds over into the thinking.
“On the other hand, the SEC plays a meaningful game almost every week.”
According to ESPN and SEC fans, sure.
LikeLike
I have the impression that ESPN College GameDay spends more time on games airing on DIsney networks and less time on games airing on other networks, but I never counted minutes. ESPN is almost always at locations where the game is on ABC/ESPN networks. As far as ESPN coverage of all conferences they are at least as Fair and Balanced as Fox News.
LikeLike
Yes, their coverage focuses on what they air. It makes perfect sense. But it also makes it a lie when they say their coverage isn’t biased, especially going forward when they’ll have all of the SEC and ACC rights and might drop other rights. If they weren’t so influential, it wouldn’t matter.
LikeLike
Just one more point: Tim Tebow
Even non-UF SEC fans got sick of the amount of fawning coverage he got from ESPN (and kept getting for years – even now).
LikeLike
Including me!
LikeLike
Those stats prove my point. The Big 10 gets as much coverage as the next two non-SEC conferences combined. Nobody outside Ohio St. fans think Herbstreit is anything but an Ohio St. homer. Big 10 fans complaining about SEC bias just look absurd. Yes, the SEC gets the most, but the Big 10 gets far more than its share.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Those stats prove my point. The Big 10 gets as much coverage as the next two non-SEC conferences combined.”
I didn’t say you were wrong about not covering the B12 and P12. Funny, those are Fox conferences. I sad they over-cover the SEC, and the tone of the coverage is also more pro-SEC.
“Nobody outside Ohio St. fans think Herbstreit is anything but an Ohio St. homer.”
That’s patently false. The internet is full of SEC (and other anti-OSU/B10) fans who say he is “fair.” At least until he calls games involving their teams. His problem is that he self-censors to avoid appearing pro-OSU and he overcompensates.
Herbstreit said on a live, national ESPN broadcast that if he had a son of college age, he would not send him to play at his alma mater in a Tressel offense. He’s never said anything similar about any other school. Herbstreit used his ballot to drop Ohio State three places in the final AP poll, from sixth to ninth (nobody else had OSU that low) after they beat Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl (while jumping OU from 14 to 7 after beating 8-4 UConn). After Terrelle Pryor made a great play at Iowa to keep from losing the game and the Big Ten title, Herbstreit chastised him on a national broadcast for his body language earlier after a WR dropped a wide open TD pass.
“Yes, the SEC gets the most, but the Big 10 gets far more than its share.”
This gets back to my point – what is anyone’s fair share? By size, the SEC, B10 and ACC should all get the same with the P12 and B12 just behind. By success the SEC should lead the B10 a little (both averaged almost 3 teams per season that would’ve made the 12-team CFP) with the rest behind. But neither of those is how ESPN splits coverage.
LikeLike
Agreed, I think everyone will want to test the open market this time. Even the SEC wants more money if it’s available.
Yes, OSU has always had a big game for quite a while now. But we don’t play the SEC much (a couple of series got dropped) generally, but I know AL and UGA are listed. The last UGA series fell through, and AL used to try to switch things to a neutral site but have done more home and home scheduling lately, but we’ll see. Obviously UT was a B12 series when it was scheduled. OSU could be happy playing the ACC and P12 and B12.
Well, it has that effect whether they say it or not. If the ACC, B10 and P12 are scheduling each other, that’s the 1 P5 OOC game for everyone (9 conference games for B10 and P12, 8+ND or SEC rival for ACC). The other 2 will be buy games to get to 7 home games. You don’t have to say you’re freezing out the SEC, but that’s what it looks like anyway.
LikeLike
There’s no alliance that can equate to adding a valuable school (or set of schools) to a conference.
That’s probably true, but there is no Texas/Okahoma deal left for anyone to make. You still have to improve your position as much as you can, even if the best moves don’t exactly match what the SEC just did.
LikeLike
IMO – about the only way they can make more money is agree to a set* of neutral site games and then sell those off as a package. I’m sure the networks would love to air guaranteed games between the best teams. Freeing up those teams and making sure there are enough home games for those involved will pose a challenge.
*i.e. one a week for the first nine weeks of the season where each conference provides 6 teams.
LikeLike
Mike,
I assume that would be intended as a counter to the SEC game of the week. But the B10 wants its own version of that, so splitting it 3 ways isn’t helpful to the B10. I also think the big brand schools would balk at having their OOC schedules controlled this way.
LikeLike
@Brian –
I assume that would be intended as a counter to the SEC game of the week. But the B10 wants its own version of that, so splitting it 3 ways isn’t helpful to the B10.
Fox seems committed to Big Noon and since noon ET is terrible for the PAC that seems to be where the Big Ten’s game of the week is going to end up. Sell the neutral site package off as a prime time package and I’m sure it will move the needle for everyone involved.
I also think the big brand schools would balk at having their OOC schedules controlled this way.
I absolutely agree. This is just only way I see this being revenue generator.
LikeLike
Not sure this alliance thing will be a big deal, if it even happens. Don’t see how it makes significantly more money, and the B1G sure isn’t going to share any of their loot. Don’t see how it solves many of the issues that have USC’s eyes wandering. The ACC is still stuck with a long term 2nd tier ESPN contract.
Might temporarily blunt some SEC inspired proposals, but there’s always the chance the SEC could at some point break away from the NCAA, too. If the SEC then expands scholarship limits, Clemson and FSU are going to feel they have to keep up. USC, Phil Knight, Ohio State, and (cough) Nebraska (cough) would also be interested. So then we’re back to does the SEC try to form a 30-school super league? The B1G raid the top AAU of the P12 and ACC for a 24-school superconference to match with a 20-school SEC superconference, leaving just a Poor but Proud League of Misfit Toys for the left behinds?
Any alliance seems more like a stopgap measure, or even a ‘Vote of Confidence’ in the current P12 & ACC. Perhaps it will allow the P12 and ACC commissioners to “Not lose any sleep worrying about realignment.”
LikeLike
I agree this doesn’t seem to be a big deal.
I don’t really worry about the SEC breaking away, because unless they take a lot of people with them they’d have nobody to play. The NCAA members wouldn’t be allowed to play them in any sport and the SEC wouldn’t be allowed to compete for any NCAA titles. And scholarship limits won’t go up because of Title IX. They’ll just pay the same number of players more money.
LikeLike
Nobody’s going to break away.
First off, it’d completely regionalize the sport, and that takes away from the big money/ratings from the CFP and the bowl money.
Not to mention that it’d probably have an impact on the rest of sports where you want to be a part of the NCAA Tournament for example.
LikeLike
Don’t see how it solves many of the issues that have USC’s eyes wandering.
USC’s eyes aren’t wandering the way Texas was. UT was looking at other conferences a decade ago. We all thought they’d look again. USC has not done that. USC declined to sign a 25 to 30-year grant of rights, which makes perfect sense because nobody should lock themselves in for a quarter-century.
Even if USC wanted to look at other conferences, they have only one realistic destination, the Big Ten. It is far from obvious that it could work, which means USC might have no better option than the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Regarding possible B1G mergers and alliances, people forget about internal conference relationships and politics, and they forget those relationships have long histories. The B1G will not under any circumstances dump Purdue, Illinois (charter members) or even Rutgers and Maryland to merge with either the PAC12 or or ACC. Nor will USC/UCLA/Washinton/Oregon leave behind OrSt, WASt, nor will UNC, UVa leave behind Wake Forest. Any agreement is all or nothing. There simply cannot be any cherry picking of schools.
Perhaps a two way or three way merger makes no economic sense or even scheduling sense, but those are the only realistic choices. History matters. Relationships matter.
LikeLike
Generally I agree that the ties between schools are stronger than sports fans seem to realize. However, not sure it’s safe to say that WA or UNC are going to bat for WASt or Wake forever no matter the circumstances. I’m sure OKSt (who is a much better program than either) thought they were tied to Oklahoma until they weren’t. Many of the B1G/PAC/ACC bonds are historically tight, but may not stay that way forever.
LikeLike
You need to take a middle-ground position. Relationships are certainly are part of the realignment equation, but some schools have abandoned them for the right offer. After all, both Nebraska and Maryland abandoned long-standing relationships to join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Bob,
That’s true for the B10 which is in a position of power. But UMD left the ACC for money. CU, NE, MO, UT and OU left the B12 for money. AR, TAMU, UT, TT and Baylor left the SWC for money and stability. OU just left OkSU behind. It seems naive to think there are no circumstances under which those P12 or ACC moves could happen. I’m not saying they will happen, just that they could. Relationships only matter so much.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can cite anything that happened in the SWC, Big8, or Big12 as a model for what can happen. Those were always unstable conferences, and what Texas or Oklahoma or Missouri or Colorado did is not relevant. They were in the midst of chaos and looking for a safety net. And Texas always seemed to be the problem child. The SEC might have buyers remorse in a few years.
Now the Athletic is reporting that the B1G, ACC, and PAC12 are actively discussing a scheduling agreement for all sports, and that they have organized a coordinating committee of athletic directors to work out the details. I would be willing to bet this happens. It avoids all the messiness of breaking up conferences, and it allows the three conferences to offer really attractive games on a regular basis during the regular season: Clemson/USC, Ohio State/Washington, UNC/Michigan…
As a side benefit, the agreement would likely include Notre Dame. The only schools they regularly schedule that would be outside the agreement are Texas and Navy. They could easily be accommodated in any agreement. All ND’s other traditional rivals would be in the agreement. ND would still have a national schedule, even if it ultimately joined the ACC.
Of course the bookkeepers will have to weigh in, but the opportunity to televise games between Kings on a regular, possibly weekly, basis should be attractive to TV networks, and should enhance the contracts of all three conferences. The package of games offered would be at least as attractive as any SEC offering, and the population basis would be much larger. The ACC might be able to renegotiate its terrible contract.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can cite anything that happened in the SWC, Big8, or Big12 as a model for what can happen. Those were always unstable conferences, and what Texas or Oklahoma or Missouri or Colorado did is not relevant. They were in the midst of chaos and looking for a safety net. And Texas always seemed to be the problem child.
There’s a couple too many “always” in that paragraph. Those conferences weren’t always unstable, and Texas’ reputation for causing instability is relatively recent. Ultimately, the physics of realignment apply to them just as much as to everybody else.
As a side benefit, the agreement would likely include Notre Dame. The only schools they regularly schedule that would be outside the agreement are Texas and Navy.
Notre Dame doesn’t regularly schedule Texas. They’ve met in football just twice this century, with no future games planned.
LikeLike
Bob,
I don’t see a lot of upside for football scheduling. The B10 and P12 are already at 9 games with 2 buy games and a P5 OOC home and home for the most part, and the ACC is at 8 with 4 SEC locked rivals and 5 ND games (so 9 of 14 with 9 games set). These conferences are already playing each other in those OOC games. They can organize them to reduce overlap a little I suppose, but the schools control their OOC schedules. They want to play specific schools in specific places for their own reasons, and they aren’t going to cede control of that to the conference willingly without a huge payday.
It might be nice in other sports, though it will make no financial difference.
LikeLike
History matters until it doesn’t. When listing unstable conferences as exceptions you missed the Big East. I also put the ACC in that category. Maryland was one of the 7 founding members of the ACC, and had been playing these schools in the Southern conference before that, yet they left for the B1G. How much loyalty do the valuable members of the ACC have to Louisville, Pittsburg, or Syracuse; or for that matter to Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech — all of these schools having less than 20 years in the ACC. If the ACC cannot improve on their current financial situation more than one of the top schools may decide that its time to quit carrying the others. With the ACC’s GoR they still have many years to stew on this.
The history of realignment has been strong conferences picking up the best schools from weaker conferences. Why would this change? There is not enough benefit in full mergers, and a large downside (besides less $$) since it is likely to produce an unstable conference (B1G wing vs PAC wing, etc.).
LikeLike
I doubt the B1G/P12/ACC alliance turns into much as far as OOC scheduling. Most of the major schools have their P5 OOC games booked out too far in advance and breaking those contracts may not be worth it. The much bigger benefit to this type of alliance is as a voting block for playoff expansion rules. If those 3 conferences want to increase their own playoff revenue potential, they have every reason to want to limit the number of SEC at-large berths.
LikeLike
I doubt the B1G/P12/ACC alliance turns into much as far as OOC scheduling. Most of the major schools have their P5 OOC games booked out too far in advance and breaking those contracts may not be worth it.
Probably not worth breaking contracts, but there are gaps in the OOC schedules starting in the mid-to-late 2020s for many teams, with more gaps the farther out you go. If they do this, it’s for the long game.
The much bigger benefit to this type of alliance is as a voting block for playoff expansion rules.
They could do that anyway (and have in the past), without any formal alliance.
LikeLike
Agreed, becoming a voting bloc would make more sense. Try to split the CFP money equally no matter how many teams a conference gets in. Cap at-larges from any 1 conference. Keep the major bowls in the system with their traditional tie-ins. Think carefully about home games. Play more CFP games outside of the SEC footprint (now 4 of the NY6 sites). Require 9 conference games. Refuse to sign up with ESPN again without going to the open market.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, there are endless prognostications here about what can and may happen. Why not have a poll where we regulars state what they believe to be the most likely short-term outcome, meaning what will happen in the next five years after the B12 and B1G GORs expire. I’ll go first.
1) Nothing.
2) B1G adds Colorado and pick one (AFA, Mizzou, Toronto, BYU).
3) Some kind of PAC-12 kissy-huggy conference team tag.
LikeLike
2) Just asking.
Colin, are you an alum of the U of Toronto, were you born in Toronto, did you kids go to Toronto?
To the best of your knowledge is there one more person anywhere who thinks that the U of Toronto is even a potential candidate to join the B1G for sports?
Is Missouri leaving the SEC anytime soon?
Why would Air Force be interested in the B1G? AFA is not looking for the money, so why should they leave the Mountain West, even if invited by the B1G?
BYU?
Would Colorado pay for itself?
3) That is an incredibly broad question. It sure looks as though the PAC12, ACC and B1G may have some thoughts on the SEC and ESPN. Is that kissy huggy?
LikeLike
JB, I am not an alumnus of U of Toronto. However it is AAU, would be the # 3 metro area in the B1G footprint and # 1 without an NFL team, has 93,000 students and a local population that loves American football and hates Canadian football. Ontario would add 16 million to the BTN footprint. I can see the potential there although you cannot.
My wife was in fact a cheerleader at BYU. The school has a huge fan base, mainly in California.
Colorado has many fans who are not happy with the PAC-12 and its anemic TV network.
AFA would be interested in the B1G because they seek national exposure and they get very little in the Mountain West.
Your suggestion that “It sure looks as though the PAC12, ACC and B1G may have some thoughts on the SEC and ESPN” is really absurd. Why would the Big Ten dilute the BTN to include the networks of those turkeys?
LikeLike
How do you know Toronto loves American college football? CFB isn’t the NFL. And how do you this love would carry over to Canadian college football? All of Ontario is not adding BTN if UToronto is added anyway.
BYU has a national fan base driven by religious affiliation. Huge is a bit of an exaggeration if you only count sports fans. For obvious reasons it is larger in Utah and CA than other places. But their B10 footprint support is minimal. By percentage of Mormons per state: 15. NE, 24. IA, 35. MD, 36. IN, 39. MN, 41. OH, 42. WI, 43. IL, 44. MI, 49, PA, 51. NJ. Beyond that, BYU is not a major research university and the B10 would not invite a school run by a church including academic interference. The general culture would be a terrible fit as well.
There are always fans who prefer the old conference. CU gets more students from and has more alumni in the P12 footprint than anywhere else and they chose the P12 to be closer to their alumni and future students. They are also a better academic and cultural fit there. The university clearly belongs there. The sports fans are mad because the P12N stinks and they make less than the B12 does (for now). Let’s ask those fans after they see what new TV deal the B12 gets. And don’t forget that those fans are mostly pining for the old Big 8/Big 12 days – when they played NE and dOU, then UT and TAMU. None of those schools are still there. Are the fans really looking for more KU and ISU games? Or going to Lubbock and Waco?
AFA has zero, zip, nada, none, 0% interest in joining the B10. They are not going to impose that sort of travel on all their athletes just to get destroyed. None of the academies want to be in a P5 conference. They know they can’t be competitive week in and week out due to their recruiting limitations. They had the #96 recruiting class last year (with 67 recruits). That’s MAC-level.
I don’t get your last point. The B10 has been in talks to maybe affiliate with the P12 and ACC. This is public knowledge. He just asked if that qualifies for your “kissy huggy” relationship.
LikeLike
Rogers Cable Canada’s largest has carried BIG 10 network since 2009.
LikeLike
Several Canadian carriers do (Cogeco, Eastlink, Rogers Cable, Shaw Cable, Shaw Direct and VMedia), but not on basic cable which is what matters. Unless they moved it from the upper tiers or sports packages where they started carrying it.
LikeLike
Won’t happen. Big 10 Network is included with Sportsnet One, Sportsnet 360, TSN 1-2-3-4-5 & ESPN Classic. BTW ESPN Classic is the only ESPN-branded channel broadcasting in Canada, although in addition to owning a stake in the Canadian version of ESPN Classic, ESPN is part-owner of TSN (which uses on-air branding similar to the flagship ESPN channel in the U.S.), along with Bell Media. TSN is primarily Canadien content. Adding U of T will not move Big 10 to basic.
Besides U of T is not going to switch is American football. It’s a cultural thing. Unless you live in Toronto as I did most people don’t grasp that. Yes they ike the NFL, but there is a hard core CFL following, Most Americans view Toronto like any other large city. It is however very British. Everytime we have a Dinner Meeting we always Toast the Queen. Fine school notwithstanding the U of T isn’t joining the Big 10. nor is any University from the Providence of Quebec which is a completely different breed of cat from the the rest of Canada.
LikeLike
As I recall Canada has a law protecting Canadian networks like TSN from direct competition (ESPN). BTN was allowed because it is so narrow and thus doesn’t compete with what TSN covers.
LikeLike
Brian,
That’s correct. There is a Canadien content law that applies to Radio & TV. When I lived there because of that law it seemed every third song on the radio was by either Ann Murray or Gordon Lightfoot. LOL
Another quirk was the CBC, CTV & Global networks were permitted to air US shows one week before they aired in the US. So if CBC aired an episode of NCIS that same episode would air a week later in the US.
LikeLike
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/the-b1g-acc-and-pac-12-arent-taking-kindly-to-the-secs-expansion-power-play-will-it-even-matter/
Some thoughts on the alliance.
The Athletic reported Friday night that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC are in “high-level discussions” about forming an alliance, which would be an effective response to the SEC poaching Texas and Oklahoma from the Big 12. The leagues are in discussions about formulating a scheduling agreement to create enticing nonconference games and essentially freeze out the SEC.
The bigger-picture goal is ultimately to create a voting bloc to prevent the SEC from completely taking over the sport. The Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC would have 41 athletic directors to work together and vote together on big-picture decisions affecting college athletics, like College Football Playoff expansion and changes to the NCAA. It gives the 3 leagues power over the 16-team SEC.
With how much the sport is changing, there is value in that. For instance, would this allow them to limit the number of bids the SEC receives in a 12-team CFP? The SEC would obviously love 4 or 5 bids, but maybe the other athletic directors vote in a way that would handicap the SEC. That remains to be seen, but it’s certainly a possibility. (Wouldn’t that be quite a way to screw over Texas and Oklahoma!)
…
There are many questions still to be answered, like whether these 3 conferences would be completely shunning the SEC, when it would start and how else they would work together. But from the Big Ten’s perspective, it makes sense.
For one, forming this alliance would put the SEC in a tough spot, as the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC would presumably play each other in the nonconference portion of the schedule. If the SEC can’t schedule with those 3 leagues and all that’s left is the remaining Big 12 teams and the Group of 5, would it force the SEC move to a 9- or 10-game conference schedule in order to make sure it has enough quality games on the schedule? The Big Ten should have no problem getting its teams enough quality games, which will become even more important whenever a 12-team CFP is instituted.
…
For the Big Ten, this is understandable. If poaching schools like USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington and Stanford ultimately wasn’t possible, this is a viable alternative. … The biggest focus for the Big Ten is making sure it doesn’t water down the conference and reduce the revenue payouts to its members. This would seemingly be a way around that.
Maybe this becomes college football’s version of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball, where the leagues all match up for 2 weeks out of the season to create enticing matchups. Each league could go down to 8 conference games, get 1 game against the other 2 leagues and still have 2 games for Group of 5 or FCS opponents.
…
Time will tell if these 3 conferences are serious about working together and protecting each other’s interests, but if they are, it could be a smart move that limits the SEC’s power.
LikeLike
Well, there’s no GOR in the sec. UF can move on over.
Kidding. I’m kidding! (For the sarcasm challenged)
LikeLike
Some of those SEC v ACC games will continue. FSU and UF are required by the State to play each other in all sports. There is no statute that says that, but the agreement was officially made started in 1958. It seems very unlikely that the state will allow either side to kill that rivalry,
Back in the 1950s there was an attempt at passing FL legislation to force this, but the then governor did not want to was legislative time on that so, the agreement was made without a law being enacted.
LikeLike
Oops, see response above to Brian. Sorry Brian.
LikeLike
Canada’s largest cable provider Rogers Cable has carried the Big 10 Network since 2009. So adding the U of T wouldn’t add anything.
LikeLike
Colin, I can certainly appreciate the advantages to the Big Ten of having one of the world’s great universities, located in the largest metropolitan area in Canada, becoming a member of the conference, but I do not believe that this union is in the realm of possibility. It is difficult to envision that the Governing Council of UT would agree to the radical changes in the university’s operations that would be required to be athletically completive in the Big Ten. I suspect that the Council members are quite aware of the frequent scandals associated with American collegiate athletics and the damage it can inflict an institution’s reputation. Joining the Big Ten would offer few advantages and present some serious potential threats to the university; the institution is doing extremely well with their current system.
LikeLike
It is difficult to envision that the Governing Council of UT would agree to the radical changes in the university’s operations that would be required to be athletically completive in the Big Ten.
All correct. And let’s say the Council did want Toronto to be competitive in American collegiate athletics? Look at Rutgers. They have been in power five (or equivalent) conferences for 30 years. Look at their record.
LikeLike
Marc
Let us be clear about Rutgers. The lousy records were the result of totally incompetent leadership. There have been several total fools as AD. There have been a couple of decent ones, but for one reason or another, they left. Tim Pernetti was a good one and led the charge to a B1G invite. There was a scandal about abusing athletes at practice and Pernetti did everything the right way, but a fall guy was needed and he was fired anyway.
Other than Schiano, recent football coaches have been really bad, capped off by Chris Ash, who might have been the very worst P5 coach.
Rutgers had lousy football because they earned it.
To be fair, there were some financial constraints. When Schiano left to go the Tampa Bay in 2012, the athletic department had a budget of only one million dollars to hire a replacement head coach. Obviously no hot coach was coming to RU for that little money ten years ago. Also the job was not totally terrible, since Schiano had taken them to five bowls in the his last six years, or something like that, so it was the money, not totally the job.
Naturally the lousy decisions and terrible football helped cause the financial issues, which resulted in more miserable football.
Great example of their coaching until a few years ago were the football and basketball coaches. Chris Ash came from Ohio State and seemed to think that recruiting was not part of his job at Rutgers.
Rutgers hero Eddie Jordan was the basketball coach. Jordan was the star guard from the 1976 team that was 29-0 going into the final four. That was the year that Indiana was undefeated and won the national title. Jordan came back to RU from coaching in the NBA.
After both Ash and Jordan were fired, there were numerous reports from the top NJ high school football and basketball coaches that neither Ash nor Jordan ever contacted them, tried to get involved with them, or even asked about their players. Duh.
It may not be fair to other schools to use the total incompetence at Rutgers as a base line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But RU already had some of the facilities they needed for the B10. UToronto does not. Their football stadium seats 5000 and they don’t sell out. The hoops arena seats 2000. The hockey arena seats 4000. They could temporarily play in other facilities off campus, but that is never a long term solution that works well. Do they want to spend hundreds of millions on this when that doesn’t fit their current model?
LikeLike
Brian, Toronto has an indoor stadium, the Rodgers Centre, that seats 54,000 for American football and they also have an outdoor stadium used for the 1976 Olympics that seats 66,000 for football. They have arenas for basketball and hockey used for their NBA and NHL teams.
Note that both USC and UCLA play football in off-campus stadiums and they get along just fine.
LikeLike
The city has one, yes, but it is used by the Blue Jays. The Olympic Stadium is in Montreal I believe. Sharing a hockey or hoops arena is challenging due to all the games per week and other activities usually scheduled (concerts, etc.).
This is like saying NJ has MetLife Stadium so RU should play there all the time. DC has an NFL stadium, so why play on campus? MN built their own place for a reason. The lack of on campus facilities shows the level of commitment to college sports at the school, and also correlates to how committed the fans are to attending. The Coliseum is literally across the street from USC. Politics kept UCLA from building an on campus stadium, so they play in a stadium with no professional tenants (they shared the Coliseum with USC until the Raiders moved in). They only average about 57,000 fans (70% capacity) though.
LikeLike
I was not making the Rutgers comments to support the idea that U Toronto, which is in a country which has no American college football, could suddenly become a B1G team. In fact, I think that is absurd.
I was actually thinking about schools such as the University of Kansas, which in theory could improve its football (though I do not particularly expect that to happen).
I still am waiting to find the second person anywhere who thinks that this could work with the University of Toronto.
In addition to incompetence, RU now has 152 years of college football, virtually a state full of people that would definitely support a successful team, and is the most important college football team in the largest market in the US. (Though no college football teams are even close to comparable to the Giants or Jets (both of which are actually NJ based teams)).
Ignoring all of that, I still also wait to learn how U Toronto would earn for the B1G well in excess of the expected $70 million or so per team likely in the new broadcast contract. Such a move would require a major financial gain to each team in the conference. A break even would not be worth the effort.
In addition to other issues, every trip to or from U Toronto is international. That means customs, passport control, etc., coming and going. That is a lot harder and more expensive than going to Lawrence, KS, to play the Jayhawks.
LikeLike
“I still am waiting to find the second person anywhere who thinks that this could work with the University of Toronto.”
Here ya go, Bernie:
https://fifthquarter.net/big-ten/2020/06/09/big-ten-expansion-candidates-part-i-the-university-of-toronto/
https://tradertalkssports.com/2021/02/23/could-the-big-10-really-bring-in-the-university-of-toronto-as-an-expansion-school/
LikeLiked by 1 person
U Toronto claims to have played the first real football game on Nov. 9, 1861.
https://www.thestar.com/sports/football/2011/11/08/u_of_t_celebrates_footballs_foundation.html
That’s 8 years early than the Rutgers/NJC game of November 6, 1869, which was more of a soccer match anyway.
That would make an interesting rivalry.
Would that make SUNY Buffalo the bridge school?
LikeLike
Bob, McGill University in Montreal claims to have played the first “modern” football game vs Harvard in 1974. They also claim to have invented football, basketball and hockey.
FYI, McGill is a public university located in Montreal, is an AAU member with about 40,000 students and is the flagship university of Quebec.
https://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/features/birth-3-sports
LikeLike
I am not sure the average citizen of Quebec considers McGill their flagship university since instruction is in English. It is a flagship level university, but McGill was founded by the English invaders of the former French colony. As far as sports they note James Naismith was a McGill graduate, not that basketball was founded at McGill. Also that they played what might be the earliest “modern” football game against Harvard in Cambridge. McGill has better claims on Hockey.
LikeLike
Little8, I agree. I’ve been to Montreal and everyone speaks French. Nonetheless the # 1 ranked academic school in the province is McGill (link).
Montreal is about fifty miles from the NY state line and about a hundred miles from the national capital, Ottawa. The closest P5 school to both Toronto and Montreal is Syracuse.
https://www.4icu.org/ca/quebec/
LikeLike
I’ll never say never in conference realignment, but one thing that I’m about 99.99% sure of is that the Big Ten won’t be adding any schools from Canada. We might as well be talking about expansion to the UK (like the NFL always floats periodically) to add Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics and Political Science. Heck, every global media strategy is centered on China because of growth there, so why not Tsinghua University?
Don’t get me wrong: I love the atmosphere here where we could actually debate whether the Big Ten would add Toronto as an AAU school but somehow wouldn’t consider adding Oklahoma and Florida State because they’re not AAU schools… but once we get our heads of out the clouds, the Big Ten still needs to make a lot of football money (with maybe a side serving of basketball money) for any type of expansion to work.
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie: Yes, Rutgers made mistakes in their athletic department. But look at any school that has tried to move up to the “next level” in sports. It is usually a very long haul. And Rutgers’ futility is not limited to football—they have a long history of struggling in almost all sports, with the very rare exception. Their last NCAA title in any sport, I believe, was fencing in the 1940s.
Kansas is interesting too, because they have (nominally) been at the top level of football all along. Both Charlie Weis and Les Miles were supposed to be the big-name coaches who’d take them to the promised land. Both were spectacular failures. But you cannot say school leadership didn’t try.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2021/08/14/college-football-conference-alliance-big-ten-pac-12-acc
Some more about the alliance meeting.
The Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC are reportedly discussing a conference alliance that could go beyond a mere football scheduling agreement into a “broader cooperation,” according to Max Olson of The Athletic. The three conference commissioners—the Big Ten’s Kevin Warren, Pac-12’s George Kliavkoff and ACC’s Jim Phillips—have had “high-level discussions” over the past few weeks.
Specifics of the discussions are not yet known, but Olson reports that the broad goal of the potential alliance is for the three leagues to be in unison when voting on major issues, such as College Football Playoff expansion. The three commissioners have not yet discussed trying to lure the remaining eight Big 12 teams to their respective leagues.
The Big 12 does not appear to be involved in this potential allegiance. Commissioner Bob Bowlsby met with Kliavkoff earlier this summer to discuss a prospective working relationship, though this latest development would represent another setback for the Big 12 if it were to be left out.
An official alliance is not expected to come together imminently, though it’s clear that the SEC’s power move to add Texas and Oklahoma has created a sense of urgency for the rest of the Power 5.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the ACC, Pac 12 and Big 10 have common interests in CFP expansion.
This comes across like a bunch of petty junior high girls getting together because a different one got a good date.
LikeLike
Everyone has common interests in reining in ESPN and the SEC, especially after UT/OU move. That doesn’t mean the 3 conferences will agree on everything. And they may all agree with the SEC on a lot of issues.
A cap on the number of teams per conference would certainly be in their interests, if for no other reason than because the SEC is larger. The B10 and P12 have common cause in preserving the Rose Bowl while the ACC might feel similarly about the Orange Bowl. All 3 should worry about the CFP being in Dallas, New Orleans and Atlanta so much (and all but the ACC would include Miami in that).
LikeLike
Colin
OK, so there are at least two more people. That does not change my view of the impracticality of the idea, but you are not stranded on an island all by yourself. That is a good thing.
LikeLike
Bernie, about ten years ago I lived in Troy, Michigan and I wrote a letter, with my address and phone number, to the Big Ten in which I suggested UT as a B1G member. I never heard back from the conference but about ten days later I did receive a phone call at my home from Bill Martin, Athletic Director of the University of Michigan.
I was somewhat stunned, but he said “They’re in the AAU! It’s a great idea!” He went on to say that UM had a dozen athletes from Canada on scholarship and he thought it would be great if they could get athletic scholies in their own country and compete in the NCAA. Might sound far-fetched, but that happened.
LikeLike
The current NCAA process allows Canadian schools to enter D-II, as Simon Fraser did from the NAIA (but football in Canada for a decade). SFU dominated in the NAIA, winning the Director’s Cup multiple times and being strong in football. They struggled in the 00s when they went back to playing Canadian college football. Then they moved to D-II and still haven’t had a winning season in over 10 years of play: 1-9, 3-7, 5-6, 3-7, 2-9, 0-9, 0-10, 0-10, 1-9, 1-9. Toronto is worse in the CIS (Canada’s NCAA) than SFU was. If that’s what SFU can do in D-II, imagine how far away Toronto is from P5 level. It’d be like putting RU in the NFL.
And SFU has faced other difficulties in the NCAA. They were supposed to host playoff games in soccer, but the NCAA had to move them because many US players didn’t have passports.
LikeLike
Brian, there may be some valid reasons why Totonto couldn’t compete in the Big Ten but Simon Frasier is a poor analogy. SF is Div II, there is no TV money and Vancouver is about one tenth the size of the Toronto metro area. With a good coach, the transfer portal and a BYU-caliber infusion of NIL scholarships, Toronto could probably field a competitive team in a couple of years.
The comparison with Rutgers is also inappropriate. Rutgers was doing very well with Tim Pernetti as AD and Greg Schiano as football. The athletic dept has essentially a coup with Pernetti canned over a trivial issue and replaced with a female AD who had a wife. She lasted only a year or so but the damage was done.
LikeLike
We are now in fantasyland territory. Look at every school that has tried to join FBS, or noncompetitive schools already in FBS who’ve tried to improve. Look at, say, the last ten who have tried. How long has it taken, if they succeeded at all (and sustained it)? There is always an excuse, but the bottom line is almost always the same.
Bear in mind, Greg Schiano’s first winning season was RU’s fifteenth season in the Big East. And lest we over-estimate Schiano’s success, he had just one season in which RU finished ranked. Their previous ranked season was 30 years earlier, with none since. They are perennial doormats, going back decades, with rare exceptional seasons when they peek above the parapet, only to fall down again.
LikeLike
SFU is the only Canadian school to move to the NCAA, so it’s the best available analogy. SFU went to D-II because that’s where the NCAA would allow it to go (the NCAA originally rejected SFU for D-II but later allowed it). The NCAA might not even allow a direct jump to D-I, but we’ll ignore that. The point is that SFU was on par with Toronto in Canada and they have been the Rutgers of D-II. They would make KU look like an NFL team. They would lose games 70-7 on a regular basis for years, maybe decades. There is zero chance they could be competitive in 2 years. Teams that have been in P5 conferences for decades struggle to compete despite having access to the portal and lots of TV money. But a new team in a foreign country is going to suddenly become good? Players will choose playing in Canada?
The market size doesn’t matter when nobody in the market cares much about college sports. Why on earth would you assume they could find a sponsor to pay for scholarships?
RU is a great comparison because they are trying to make a sizable jump into the B10, though they started well above the level of Toronto. You can blame the school and the ADs, but the reality is that bad programs struggle to find and keep good coaches. For all the Schiano hype, he went 28-48 in a weak power conference (if you even count the depleted Big East as a power conference). RU has dumped tens of millions into athletics and has been bad almost across the board in the B10 and they know it. They hope they can become more competitive as their B10 payout rises.
Toronto would need to invest a lot more money than RU and have to build a culture around the importance of college athletics. That is not an opinion generally held in Canada, so they can’t lean on alumni and casual fans.
Trivial issue? You mean the MBB coach abusing players and not losing his job? People forget that Hermann was highly touted as an up and coming AD prospect who had experience at UL as they moved up in conferences twice and she worked alongside one of the best ADs in the business. It didn’t work out, but it doesn’t mean RU did a terrible job in hiring her. And if you have issues with her having a wife, that’s your problem.
LikeLike
Rutgers AD Tim Pernetti sent a video of basketball coach Mike Rice’s controversial practice techniques, that involved verbal and physical abuse of players, to university president Dr. Robert L. Barchi. Dr. Barchi did not watch the video and told Pernetti that he agreed that a three-game suspension for Rice was appropriate.
The female chair of the BOT, who as an undergrad founded Rutgers first LGBTQ organization, seized upon this inadequate punishment as grounds to fire Pernetti. She then led the search committee to hire a female AD to replace him.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2013/4/5/4187670/tim-pernetti-resigns-rutgers-robert-barchi-press-conference
LikeLike
@Colin – There appear to have been many mistakes at Rutgers in the Mike Rice situation across the board. That being said, the fact that the chair of the Rutgers Board of Trustees founded the school’s first LGBTQ organization is irrelevant as applied to this situation.
LikeLike
Frank, it is relevant.Tim Pernetti was railroaded. He was fired on contrived charges and was replaced by a female AD who had a long history of player abuse much like Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice. The emphasis was on getting a female hired and the vetting process was so lame that they ended up with a former coach who was just as bad as Rice.
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/lupica-ru-kidding-rutgers-fails-show-guts-new-ad-hermann-article-1.1360953
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/29/former-player-rutgers-ad-julie-hermann-erin-zammett-ruddy-abuse/2370459/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-athletic-director-accused-player-abuse/story?id=19266470
https://www.nj.com/sports/2013/05/rutgers_new_athletic_director.html
LikeLike
So?
It’s the AD’s job to properly punish the behavior. As it turns out, presidents are busy people who delegate things and expect those people to handle their jobs. The AD, who hired the coach, recommended 3 games for what was a firing offense once the video became public. It’s like the NFL with Ray Rice – a light punishment until the video goes public and then tremendous pushback.
One member of the BoT doesn’t fire anyone. They’d need a consensus to order it. The president would’ve fired him but Pernetti resigned. But all sorts of people outside of RU were demanding he be fired as well (politicians, for example) so don’t act like this was one woman’s vendetta.
You need to get over your misogyny and homophobia. Is there something wrong with a student founding an organization? Is there something wrong with wanting a female AD? Besides, the other final candidates were both men. Women are over 50% of the population and very few have ever been P5 ADs. Many people believe that some of the big problems in college sports are perpetuated by the old boys network always hiring more of the same group (white males). Sometimes you have to force a search to consider other types of candidates to break through a ceiling that is limiting qualified people from being considered. RU hired a person who was generally considered a top AD candidate at the time, and she was also female. And
https://www.chronicle.com/article/in-the-game-but-rarely-no-1/
LikeLike
Brian, you are wrong. Rutgers did not hire a person who was generally considered a top AD candidate at the time. She was a player abuser just like Mike Rice and the protests started coming out from her former players the week after Rutgers hired her.
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/lupica-ru-kidding-rutgers-fails-show-guts-new-ad-hermann-article-1.1360953
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/29/former-player-rutgers-ad-julie-hermann-erin-zammett-ruddy-abuse/2370459/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-athletic-director-accused-player-abuse/story?id=19266470
https://www.nj.com/sports/2013/05/rutgers_new_athletic_director.html
LikeLike
“Frank, it is relevant.”
No, it isn’t. The decisions she made while on the BoT are relevant. What she did in college most definitely isn’t.
“Tim Pernetti was railroaded. He was fired on contrived charges ”
Did Rice not abuse players? Was Pernetti not the AD at the time? Did Pernetti not propose a 3 game suspension rather than firing a coach that he hired?
https://www.thesunchronicle.com/rutgers-pernetti-fire-rice-after-video-release/article_884d8dac-9c6a-11e2-9b82-001a4bcf887a.html
Pernetti said he understands why many asked why Rice wasn’t fired after the initial investigation.
“I spent more time with that option on whether we should fire Mike or not than any other option,” he said. “There is a lot of hindsight, 20-20. I made that decision. I am accountable for it. I have to live with it.”
“and was replaced by a female AD who had a long history of player abuse much like Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice.”
Which was not known at the time. It came out after she was hired.
“The emphasis was on getting a female hired”
That must be why 2 of the final 3 candidates were men, one of whom withdrew from consideration and the other also had some skeletons.
“and the vetting process was so lame that they ended up with a former coach who was just as bad as Rice.”
The search firm screwed up and so did the committee that relied on them. She was being hired as an administrator, not a coach, so most of their vetting probably focused on her as an administrator. The abuse allegations didn’t come out until she was hired and then the former players went public. She had coached at multiple places including USA volleyball and there were no public records of complaints. The TN AD may have kept quiet about the complaints.
LikeLike
Nothing you linked says she wasn’t considered a top candidate at the time. They are all pieces after she was hired talking about her past abuse issues, which nobody is denying. The former players didn’t go public until after her hiring was announced. Was RU supposed to read their minds?
Link something written before she was hired that says she wasn’t a top candidate. UL and Tom Jurich were considered prime examples of how to run an AD at the time, and she was his #2. Her known skeletons at the time (a pregnancy discrimination suit tied up in the courts) were no worse than the other final candidate (WI’s #2 right after there were sexual abuse allegations against people at a post-bowl party and questions about how much he knew at the time).
LikeLike
Brian, he did properly punish Rice’s behavior. From your owh link: “Rutgers athletic director Tim Pernetti was given a copy of the video in late November by a former employee. After hiring independent investigators to analyze the tape, he suspended Rice for three games, fined him $75,000 and ordered him to attend anger management classes. University president Robert Barchi saw the tape and signed off on the initial punishment.”
And just how bad was Rice? Well, see for yourself. Here’s the Rice video on Youtube. He shoves some of them, he throws basketballs at their legs. No one got injured. Bobby Knight did a lot worse that htis for thirty years.
LikeLike
Brian, Rutgers wasn’t supposed to read their minds. However, Hermann had a lawsuit filed against her at Louisville and another one at Tennessee. This search committee had no inkling about either. Obviously did nothing at all to review her past performance.
She was hired because she was a woman and she had a wife. That’s all that kate Sweeney needed to know.
LikeLike
“Brian, he did properly punish Rice’s behavior.”
No, he didn’t. That’s why they later fired Rice and then Pernetti was forced to resign. Lots of people called for his firing as soon as they saw the tape. Politicians from both parties were calling for Rice’s firing. It wasn’t controversial to fire him. The AD’s first job is to protect the players from abuse.
“Bobby Knight did a lot worse that htis for thirty years.”
Knight got fired for his behavior when there was video of it.
“However, Hermann had a lawsuit filed against her at Louisville and another one at Tennessee.”
Not quite, she was not party to the suit at UL. She was a key witness for UL in it, but she wasn’t sued. The vetting process should have caught the lawsuits, though. Both suits were related to firing employees and whether they were based on discrimination. You make it sound like she was sued for abusing players.
“This search committee had no inkling about either. Obviously did nothing at all to review her past performance.”
No, that isn’t clear. They interviewed some people and heard good things. They missed the lawsuits or decided they weren’t important (a mistake either way). Nobody has defended the poor vetting.
https://www.nj.com/sports/2013/05/rutgers_new_athletic_director.html
Two of her former bosses extolled her as a leader.
“How excited I am for Julie Hermann and excited for Rutgers,” said Joan Cronan, the former athletic director at Tennessee. She called Hermann “one of the most outstanding administrators in the country.”
Louisville’s athletic director Tom Jurich said that in 17 years of working with Hermann, first at Northern Arizona where she was a first-time head coach, then at Louisville, “I’ve never seen anything but impeccable behavior.”
https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/rutgers-ad-hermann-involved-in-lawsuit/article_5f9f90ef-0162-52f9-b944-0b4586a9149a.html
Schurman is not taking a position as to whether there is validity in the complaints against Hermann, because complaints and lawsuits are often filed against administrators and high-level university officials. But, she said, the search firm should have turned up that information.
Hermann got support from two former Tennessee employees.
Joan Cronan, women’s athletic director emeritus at Tennessee, said in a statement that she holds Hermann in high regard, and that while the ex-coach’s tenure in the 1990s “was a very frustrating time for everyone connected with the volleyball program, I do not recall it being an abusive situation.”
…
“I believe she is well-prepared for her new role at Rutgers University,” Cronan wrote. “After Julie’s sixth season as the head volleyball coach, I decided that a change was needed, and I moved Julie to a position in athletics administration.’
Marc Gesualdo, a graduate assistant for the Vols’ sports information department from 1994-96, said he didn’t see any instances of abuse while handling media inquiries for the volleyball program under Hermann. He attended virtually all of Tennessee’s games during that stretch, but he wasn’t at all practices.
“Never did I see anything that I would deem as inappropriate or just like so outlandish that it was bordering on abuse,” Gesualdo said. “I can’t say I saw anything at all that bordered on abuse.”
—
“She was hired because she was a woman and she had a wife.”
I believe all the final candidates had wives, so what’s your point? Should only single candidates be considered? That would be discrimination.
“That’s all that kate Sweeney needed to know.”
Hermann was a qualified candidate (especially if your search firm missed all her skeletons). A committee of 26 people eventually recommended her hiring. Sweeney was co-chair of the executive committee, so while she had some power she couldn’t make the decision herself. The president made the final decision.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/29/rutgers-athletic-director-search-julie-hermann-parker-executive-search/2370245/
“My colleagues on the search committee and I understood that this was a critical appointment for the university,” Edwards, the co-chair, said after Hermann’s appointment. “We could’ve gone on for months, I suppose, and still wouldn’t have come to a different conclusion.”
LikeLike
Frank,
In your tweets today: “ In any event, when the only way that an expansion move can avoid being a shotgun marriage is for a full merger but the Big Ten makes so much more money than the Pac-12 and ACC, that points to an alliance. The B1G keeps its money but gets more games against key Pac-12/ACC teams.”
I understand not sharing “home” money, but would aligning as to carriage of conference’s networks (as opposed to the carriage rate) be a place of common enough interest to work on together? Each could guarantee the other to conferences at least one or two FB, basketball, and possibly a series or two in baseball. Toss in possibly WBB, wrestling, gymnastics, softball, etc to juice up the attractiveness of the conference networks with quality events that really get exposure during championship events outside local regions. Or is that crossing to close into sharing money interests? And, yes, I remember ACCN is espn BTN -fox, P12N – unaligned.
LikeLike
Or is it possible to merge without sharing the money equally? All the B10 schools get X while the P12 gets Y and the ACC gets Z (or just B10/P12). Base the amounts on the difference between the current deals, so if the B10 goes up $10M so do the others (shrinks the gap as a percentage). Or even slowly shrink the absolute gap with the B10 up $10M and the others going up $12M.
LikeLike
I suspect they are trying to avoid the unwieldy governance issues that come with a full merger. An alliance allows them to get the benefits of cooperation while remaining autonomous where they want to be.
The Big 12 is a cautionary tale about conferences where some members have more weight than others. In the Big Ten today, even lowly Rutgers has the same vote as everyone else, and they also get a full money share eventually, after a buy-in period.
(RU may in fact be already fully bought-in…I just haven’t checked.)
LikeLike
https://www.nj.com/sports/g66l-2019/01/af8d7143a23369/rutgers-report-details-how-much-money-athletics-will-receive-from-big-ten-and-you-wont-believe-the-numbers.html
RU would’ve started getting a full share in 2021, but they put it off to receive some extra money sooner (interest free loans from the B10). It jumps from $28.6M in 2020 to $43.7M in 2021, but they won’t hit the full amount until 2027.
According to the report, Rutgers and the Big Ten agreed on a plan for Rutgers to be paid in the following annual payments:
2015: $8,645,986
2016: $9,043,606
2017: $9,442,178
2018: $9,841,721
2019: $10,242,246
2020: $10,643,801
The Big Ten agreed to advance Rutgers on its future distributions. The Big Ten loan amounts, according to the CSS report, are apparently interest-free and will see Rutgers receiving $3 million in 2019 and $7 million in 2020.
Rutgers will have to pay back the Big Ten a check for $6 million in 2021 and $4 million in 2022.
…
The Big Ten agreed to advance an additional $38 million, which will be given to Rutgers in the following installments:
2018: $14 million
2019: $13 million
2020: $11 million
As a result of the loans, Rutgers’ payouts from the Big Ten will be as follows:
2018: $23,841,721 (previous amount: $9,841,721)
2019: $26,242,246 (previous amount: $10,242,246)
2020: $28,643,801 (previous amount: $10,643,801)
LikeLike
The more I read about Rutgers financials, AD mismanagement, and horrible sports the more it seems like the B1G is renting BTN NYC carriage. A win so far, but for how long? If media trends continue (i.e., cord cutting, on-demand streaming, etc.) does Rutgers even belong in the B1G? Yes, it’s a good academic school and AAU, but if UVA, UNC, GT, or others ever become available I’d be having serious buyer’s remorse.
LikeLike
It is reasonable to expect significant athletic improvement from RU over the next 5-10 years. It takes some time for the change in conferences to have its full impact on recruiting. They are still catching up on facilities and coaching salaries, in part because they are last in the B10 for total revenue even with a large amount of student fee support. As they start getting paid more by the B10, they can reduce the school support and still increase total revenue. That will make it easier for them to compete with UMD, IU, IL, PU, MN and NW. Plus even just by dumb luck they have to stumble into some good hires in key positions eventually. Schiano should stabilize the football team. The current AD seems fine. Pikiell has improved the MBB team.
Remember, everyone else was already up to B10 level and are getting paid $30M more per year. Then in 2021 when RU expected to take a big step up in money, COVID hit. But as they start getting nearly equal pay, look for and expect some improvement.
From the same link as above:
Here is how CSS estimates Rutgers’ future payouts from the Big Ten to go:
Year: B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution
2018: $50,000,000 | $23,841,721
2019: $51,500,000 | $26,242,246
2020: $53,045,000 | $28,643,801
2021: $54,636,350 | $43,705,600
2022: $56,275,441 | $46,029,566
2023: $57,963,704 | $48,941,204
2024: $59,702,615 | $50,970,215
2025: $61,493,693 | $53,055,193
2026: $63,338,504 | $56,178,379
2027: $65,238,659 | $65,238,659
2028: $67,195,819 | $67,195,819
2029: $69,211,694 | $69,211,694
LikeLike
Explains why B1G is not likely to expand with any PAC or big 12 leftovers…they simply don’t draw enough viewers.
https://twitter.com/andy_staples/status/1427236338470985734?s=21
LikeLike
He updated his chart: https://twitter.com/Andy_Staples/status/1427313995678208001
If you want TV networks to pay premium prices for your games, you need games that crack the Four Million Club.
From 2015-19, 55 SEC-on-SEC games did it. 49 Big Ten-on-Big Ten games did it.
How many Pac-12 vs. Pac-12 games did it?
Five.
Staples looked at how many CFB games got 4M or more viewers from 2015-2019. He also broke it down by network – broadcast and ESPN >> FS1, ESPN2 and any others.
Top schools:
AL – 35
OSU – 31
UM – 26
Auburn – 17
ND – 17
Clear separation of the top 3.
7 SEC schools had 10+. 4 B10 schools did (PSU, MSU). Also ND, Clemson and OU. That’s it. No UT, no P12. This is why the B10 isn’t expanding.
LikeLike
What? No University of Toronto??
Seriously…very surprised Notre Dame is not higher. Mildly surprised that neither Texas nor Oklahoma made the list. Otherwise, the numbers are about what you’d expect.
LikeLike
OU made it into double digits (I mentioned them). UT wasn’t winning enough, and/or was playing too often on FS1.
LikeLike
No Kansas either. Jeepers, I was expecting to see Kansas in the top ten.
LikeLike
Is this a randomized study with broadcast, promotion, and game times, spread over various networks?
Or could this, to some extent, be a circular echo chamber. Not saying most of those are not good games to see, but there may be others that could rise if given the same promotion, network, and time slot.
This may be a concern of the B1G, concerning the recent increased association of espn and the SEC.
Maybe Marshall McLuhan was right, the medium is the message.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
He looked through the ratings for all CFB games on all networks over 5 seasons. That’s about as randomized as you can get for this.
Of course there is some feedback from non-game coverage and promotion, but many other teams get some of the same exposure by playing the kings in the prime TV windows. They still don’t draw the same in other games.
If you want TV networks to pay premium prices for your games, you need games that crack the Four Million Club.
From 2015-19, 55 SEC-on-SEC games did it. 49 Big Ten-on-Big Ten games did it.
How many Pac-12 vs. Pac-12 games did it?
Five.
That isn’t all hype. Fox puts the best P12 games (USC vs UO, USC vs UW, UO vs UW, USC etc.) on in good windows and promotes them.
Out of nearly 200 4M+ games exactly 1 game wasn’t the Army-Navy game and was G5-G5.
LikeLike
Here is an article from last week stating discussing 2020 income among the conferences. Here are the 2020 payouts per team.
Big Ten: $54.3 million
SEC: $45.5 million
Big 12: $37 to $40.5 million
Pac-12: $33.6 million
ACC: $30.9 to $37 million
https://www.onthebanks.com/2021/8/12/22620776/stability-for-rutgers-and-big-ten-in-the-numbers-football-texas-oklahoma-maryland-jim-delany
Personally, I give credit to Nebraska and tOSU for essentially forcing the hand of Commissioner Warren and having a football season last year.
Regarding RU and UMd, the article says the same thing that Frank and others keeps saying. I have not checked the numbers in the article, but it claims that B1G revenue increased by $110 million to $448 million the first year for RU and MD. So revenues roughly went from $340 to $450, or an increase of nearly 1/3 with the addition of two schools
Anyway the article says:
So as the Big Ten considers its options regarding expansion/realignment, the answer will be found in how any additions affect the numbers above. Despite all the fun us fans are having dreaming about super conferences with fan trips to places like Pasadena, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Boulder and Seattle, the future of college musical chairs will be decided primarily in cloistered away accounting offices, not the athletic director offices. Because like so much in life, at the end of the day these will be pure business decisions.
Rutgers Nation knows all too well that we are not a Big Ten member for our prowess on the gridiron. The decision to add Rutgers and Maryland was all about increased media revenue generated by locking down the New York to Washington, DC corridor. In the first year as Big Ten members (2014) according to Berkowitz, the conference recorded $448.8 million in total revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015. This represented a $110 million increase. As a result, the conference distributed roughly $32.4 million to each of its longest-standing 11 members, amounts that put those schools on par with amounts the Southeastern Conference distributed to each of its 14 member schools from conference revenue that totaled $527.4 million College Sports Success Continues to be Decided by TV Revenues – TV[R]EV.
Since Rutgers and Maryland entered the Big Ten, revenues have consistently increased so despite Big Ten fans marginalizing Rutgers and Maryland, the numbers don’t lie and they demonstrate that Rutgers and Maryland have delivered to the Big Ten exactly what Jim Delany envisioned when he advocated adding a footprint on the east coast.
LikeLike
Thanks Bernie, good info and excellent analysis. Time now to consider this ‘alliance’ that is being discussed with the ACC and PAC-12.
What does the B1G or the BTN have to gain by partnering with the ACC in football? We need to bury them like the Big East, not raise their profile. We’re already knocking heads with the SEC in the Eastern and Central time zones.
PAC-12 is a different issue. Playing B1G games in the Mountain and Pacific time zones could enhance viewership on Disney/Fox/BTN.
LikeLike
One thing to remember that the ACC commissioner is Jim Phillips, who before he was hired for the job less than 2 years ago was the long-time Northwestern athletic director and went to undergrad at Illinois. He also served time on the Rose Bowl Management Committee. As a result, he knows the Big Ten intimately well. Frankly, Phillips probably knows the Big Ten ADs and presidents better than Kevin Warren does at this point in time. The relationships can certainly matter there.
It’s not that the Big Ten needs football games per se with the ACC, but they could definitely be helpful in crafting the playoff system that they want in the short-term (e.g. providing support to the Big Ten and Pac-12 on the Rose Bowl preferences in exchange for similar preferences for the ACC with the Orange Bowl or maybe having a rotating setup in the Sugar Bowl with the SEC).
To be clear, there is absolutely no financial reason for the Big Ten to make a move. They make the most money and may even still be making more money than the SEC even *after* they add Texas and Oklahoma since the Big Ten is going back to market for a new TV contract within the next few months.
Instead, the risks to the Big Ten are long-term and were identified in the conference realignment days circa 2010: the demographics of the other power conferences are getting better while the Big Ten footprint demographics are getting worse. That was confirmed even further with this past week’s Census data. So, if the Big Ten isn’t realistically adding UNC/UVA/GT or USC/UCLA in expansion, the league does still need exposure in those regions.
LikeLike
Frank,
Things like global warming (extreme weather, damage, heat waves) and COVID may help reduce the midwest’s demographics disadvantage. And we also have to factor in who plays P5 football. In 2020 P5 was 46% black, 37% white and 3% hispanic/latino with 15% other (mixed race, AAPI, native Americans, didn’t answer, etc.). Hispanic/latino growth out west and down south doesn’t disadvantage the midwest for CFB as much as the raw numbers might make it seem.
LikeLike
Brian,
Most immigrant ethnicity’s are pretty much Americanized by the second generation. Soccer is a world wide (outside the USA) cultural thing that allegiance may be to family history. 15th generation Mexican/American may support their roots in World Cup matches, but it rarely shapes their participation choices.
LikeLike
College football won’t exist by the time those things have much of an impact.
LikeLike
Yes, but apparently this is a cultural thing (so said some people interviewed in an article on the subject that I read – coaches and players). There are plenty of second, third and higher generation hispanic/latino people in the US but they are still vastly underrepresented in CFB. Part of it is geographical – the west is already less focused on CFB. Part of it may be economic. Part of it may be racism. But whatever the reason(s), the numbers don’t lie. It may change in 50 years, or it may not.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2020/10/14/barriers-latinos-power-5-football-told-hispanic-players/3589170001/
Even though Hispanic people are the largest minority in the country, according to the United States Census Bureau, they are severely underrepresented when it comes to the Power Five conferences in college football and the NFL.
…
Mike Garcia, a founding member of TXHSFB, wasn’t raised on football, but that didn’t stop him from winning a national championship with the University of Texas as an offensive lineman in 2005.
“Personally, I didn’t grow up knowing really what football was,” said Garcia, who was raised on the east side of Houston. “As a Hispanic kid, I grew up watching basketball, and I grew up watching soccer and playing soccer.”
Garcia was hesitant to play football as a freshman in high school but eventually grew to flourish and began to admire players that came before him — like Muñoz, an offensive lineman with the Cincinnati Bengals for 13 years and an 11-time Pro Bowl player.
Muñoz wasn’t as new to football as Garcia, but like many Hispanic children, football wasn’t at the forefront of his upbringing.
“My mom had to learn about the game, I had relatives that were learning about football, where baseball and sports like that, there was a lot of knowledge already there,” Muñoz said.
Some experts say the lack of Hispanic people in football is much more than a cultural barrier, however. Mario Longoria and Jorge Iber, co-authors of the book “Latinos in American Football,” both said that Hispanic people are extremely family oriented and even though that is not necessarily a negative trait, it could be a factor in the low numbers of Hispanic players in big-time college football.
“Culture is not a deterrent,” Longoria said. “The only difference between the Latino and the White Anglo is the thought process. Latinos are always collective thinkers before they make a decision to do anything — they include their family and their extended family. Gringos are more individualists. If they’re going to do something and anybody gets in their way, they’re going to run all over you. Whether that’s good or bad, I guess is a matter of opinion.”
…
Iber referenced Texas and California as two major hot spots for Hispanic immigrants, and that going as far back as the 1930s, Hispanic children would forgo college and football to work in the fields to support their families.
He sees the pattern today in meat processing plants and other industries where immigrants make up a bulk of the workforce. Iber, the associate dean for student affairs at Texas Tech, said these sons of immigrant workers are just now beginning to see greener pastures, though.
“For some, they are able to move into that lower middle-class, they’re getting these kids into school and beginning to play football,” Iber said. “But it took a while to get to that point. It’s a 100-year process.”
…
Longoria and Iber said they believe the stereotype that Hispanic people are smaller physically than other ethnicities has impeded many young players when trying to get recruited by college programs.
Los Angeles Chargers cornerback Michael Davis, who is half Mexican, has heard his share of jabs at his Hispanic heritage.
“‘Oh, you’re Hispanic? Then maybe you should just kick the ball,’ ” Davis recalled being told. “There aren’t any obvious obstacles facing Hispanic players, but especially in a league like the NFL, everyone is predominantly Black or white, with just a handful of Hispanic players out there. So maybe some people look at Hispanic players differently, like, ‘Can you actually play?’”
LikeLike
Someone suggested a game of the week involving out of conference opponents from the 3 different conferences. That might be something that could work. It would be a guaranteed high profile out of conference game to sell the networks.
There are some of those now, but they are not guaranteed, so probably are not considered in the contract value.
LikeLike
Again, those Big 10 numbers are for the continuing members. Haven’t found what Rutgers and Maryland made, but it was $11.7 million RU and $26.1 million Maryland in 2017-18. Rutgers was projecting to go up to $23.8 million, but that was just a projection.
Big 10 is still #1, but the gap is about half of what those figures show.
LikeLike
bullet,
I posted this in a different comment:
Year: B1G full-distribution estimate | RU estimated distribution
2018: $50,000,000 | $23,841,721
2019: $51,500,000 | $26,242,246
2020: $53,045,000 | $28,643,801
2021: $54,636,350 | $43,705,600
2022: $56,275,441 | $46,029,566
2023: $57,963,704 | $48,941,204
2024: $59,702,615 | $50,970,215
2025: $61,493,693 | $53,055,193
2026: $63,338,504 | $56,178,379
2027: $65,238,659 | $65,238,659
2028: $67,195,819 | $67,195,819
2029: $69,211,694 | $69,211,694
RU delayed getting to a full share by choosing to get more money early on.
UMD’s plan is different but they also took some money upfront as a free loan. They should be close to a full share by now though (nominally it was 2020-21).
LikeLike
Brian
Important question. How do you italicize quotes from articles?
LikeLike
https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_formatting.asp
I use html tags:
less than sign i greater than sign whatever text less than sign /i greater than sign
It looks like this:
{i}Text{/i} but with .
The same concept for bold, but use b instead of i.
I’m not sure which tags work in WordPress, so let’s try some:
Bold text
Important text
Italic text
Emphasized text
Marked text
Smaller text
Deleted textInserted text
Subscript text
Superscript text
LikeLike
So deleted text (aka strikethrough) is {del}text{/del} but with less than (<) and greater than (>) signs.
LikeLike
You could try the blockquote tag, but I don’t know if it works.
I think the cite tag works the same here. More text, should be in quotes
The q tag might work, too.
LikeLike
Okay, so cite and q both produce italics. For large quotes, the {blockquote} text {/blockquote} is useful. I should try to remember that.
LikeLike
Thanks
LikeLike
I’ve missed a lot of expansion discussion because of work recently, but just wanted to add a few thoughts:
1. Yes, demographics in the B10 states aren’t great, but the B10, because it has many schools with huge student bodies, have more alums than any conference and take up the majority of the spots of the 15 largest alumni bases (9/15; the new SEC has 3/15 and the Pac has 2/15). That advantage won’t go away even in 20 years (it takes a long time for people to die and most B10 schools still have huge student bodies). However, for drawing more OOS students, conference expansion or an alliance may still make sense.
2. My thought of the B10/Pac/ACC Alliance: Sure, it won’t be a huge impact in purely financial terms, but
A. The Alliance will now essentially set NCAA and CFP rules if they stick together.
B. In terms of marketing, it’s savvy. If all the schools play each other once a year, that’s 20 games a year in a package that can be sold and would include some top-tier matchups (compared to 63 conference games that the B10 currently sells). What will get reported in the media are the numbers for the packages, and, IMO, for the B10, the conference package + Alliance OOS slate package added together will about equal the new SEC TV package (which doesn’t include OOC games) in money. Of course, it would be more effective if the Alliance doesn’t play the SEC in OOC, which would make all the top OOC games either Alliance games or ND games. The Alliance could also potentially offer ND a home which would still allow the Domers to say they are independent.
BTW, I would cut the B10 slate to 8 conference games (3 protected rivals and play every one else half the time). For the Alliance, divide in to tiers of 4 (take the top 4 best-performing teams over the past X years in each conference, and have them play each other, put the next 4 in a tier against each other, and the bottom tier play each other; reshuffle every 8 years). Alliance schools could still feel free to schedule with other Alliance schools (outside their tier) in OOC.
LikeLike
Frank,
You have been tweeting about widely dispersed B1G alums. In 2014 there were about 240,000 B1G alums in Chicago and 215,000 in NYC. I presume that the NYC total of 100,000 from RU is literally the city and maybe NY State suburbs only, such as Long Island, since RU has more than 250,000 alums just in NJ and a total approaching 600,000 alums. Far more than 100,000 RU alums live within the NYC metro area, which includes much of North Jersey (including New Brunswick).
I would say that supports your position about widespread when considering the number 1 and 3 markets.
DC had about 140,000 alums in 2014. More than half graduated from Maryland.
While I realize that this may not be a majority position on this board, I continue to maintain that NYC and DC “punch above their weight class” as financial and governmental centers. So for some important things, 140,000 alums in DC may ultimately be more important than 140,000 in Philly and Indianapolis combined.
I think that Chicago is similarly more important than its sheer numbers due to its significance in the mid-west.
https://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/5/7/5690888/where-do-big-ten-graduates-live-could-columbus-host-a-b1g-tournament
Frank also did a post on a similar subject a few years ago.
LikeLike
Bernie,
It’s important to remember that those numbers from Land Grant Holy Land are from LinkedIn accounts, so they undercount the total number of alumni (probably vastly). LinkedIn groups by metro area, so the ratio of people from city to city might be about right but not the absolute number. As you say RU probably has a lot more than 100,000 alumni in the NYC area. OSU has a lot more than 80,000 alumni in Columbus.
https://www.osu.edu/highpoints/alumni/
Outside Ohio, the top five regions for Ohio State alumni population are: Washington, D.C./northern Virginia (9,388); New York City (9,123); Chicago (8,582); eastern Texas, including Dallas, Austin, and Houston (7,940); and Los Angeles (6,819).
Chicago: LI – 5481, OSU – 8582; 63.9%
DC: LI – 5119, OSU – 9388; 54.5% (OSU includes NoVA which skews the number)
NYC: LI – 6568, OSU – 9123; 72.0%
That averages to 63.5% (or 67.9% if you ignore DC) so roughly LinkedIn gives about 2/3 of the actual total. And remember that these are actual alumni only, not counting immediate family or fans who aren’t alumni.
Frank’s data shows OSU with a 1 in Columbus (10%+), 2 in Cleveland (5-10%), and 3 (1-5%) or lower everywhere else. LinkedIn shows 79,894 in Columbus and 15,435 in Cleveland. OSU has something like 580,000 alumni. Correcting for the undercount, that puts Columbus at about 22.8% and Cleveland around 4.4%. Close, but not an exact match. It probably depends on how they are defining the metro areas.
So all that argues for multiplying the LinkedIn numbers by 1.5 to get a decent estimate.
So now let’s interpret Frank’s data. LA has a 3 for all 14 schools, SF has a 3 for 13 schools and a 2 for 1 (NW). DC has 12 3s a 2 and a 1. Chicago has 4 3s, 2 2s, 6 1s and 2 schools (RU, UMD) not at 1%.
That means very roughly for the B10 overall:
Chicago: 360,000
NYC: 320,000
DC: 210,000
SF: 125,000
LA: 125,000
Denver: 100,000
Dallas: 90,000
Seattle: 80,000
Phoenix: 60,000
Houston: 40,000
So while there are decent numbers out west, probably not enough to drive the synergy the B10 got expanding to the east. We’re also past the days where adding cable subscribers for BTN is the main goal.
LikeLike
On a mostly unrelated note, here are some cool map links:
https://www.aaronrenn.com/2015/10/29/12-ways-to-map-the-midwest/
12 ways to map the midwest, most of which we have discussed here before. The last one was new to me, though, and interesting.
https://fluid-earth.byrd.osu.edu/
An interactive global weather map. You can rotate, zoom, change projection, go back in time (until 3/22), etc. It shows near-surface T and winds in this view, but you can turn things on and off.
LikeLike
For those interested in tropics weather (aka hurricanes in my neck of the woods in FL)
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/sal/g16split/movies/goes16split.html
Another world wind map presently centered over FL, but the site and size can be changed.
https://www.windy.com/?28.569,-72.671,4
LikeLike
So while there are decent numbers out west, probably not enough to drive the synergy the B10 got expanding to the east.
I agree with this. Also, a westward expansion has significant travel drawbacks that the eastward expansion didn’t have. With a little imagination, we can probably think of other reasons why the B10 wanted to be in NJ and Maryland, but does not really want to be in California.
LikeLike
@Brian – Those numbers effectively point to what I had mentioned before: if the Big Ten really wanted to get the synergy effects of going West, they essentially need to add every main Pac-12 market… which effectively means a full merger with the Pac-12 (with only Washington State and Oregon State on the possible chopping block). LA, SF. Seattle, Phoenix and Denver are hubs for Pac-12 alums from all of the league’s schools in the same manner as Chicago, NYC and DC are for the Big Ten. So, I could see the argument that you could get that synergy when you put it all together: when you layer the Pac-12 alums on top of the Big Ten alums in those West Coast markets, you then have a large critical mass for that combined league.
The challenge, of course, is if that actually makes more money for the existing Big Ten. (It makes sense for the Pac-12 because they’re so far behind the Big Ten revenue-wise.) The potential synergy that I described above is, IMHO, the most compelling argument of how it would make financial sense for the Big Ten – it’s really a larger scale version of adding Rutgers and Maryland where they were able to unlock more value within the B1G compared to their individual values in the Big East and ACC, respectively.
However, as I’ve noted, I don’t think that synergy happens without a full merger (or very close to full merger). Just adding, say, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Washington just puts those schools on an island and you’re not getting any real synergy.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, this is why the SEC adding UT and OU is such a killer move: they ARE getting the synergy with just adding those two schools. While there’s massive money involved, there’s nothing being forced here: UT is actually getting two of its biggest historical rivals *back* (Texas A&M and Arkansas), bringing their other biggest rival that happens to be a national brand with them (Oklahoma), and it’s all in a geographically contiguous conference. That is far different than the Big Ten trying to hop over an entire time zone to get USC – in my mind, it would take adding *everyone* from the Pac-12 (except for maybe Oregon State and Washington State) for that to work as anything other than a shotgun marriage… and that’s a LOT more radical (and therefore, unrealistic) than what the SEC just did.
LikeLike
Frank,
My problem with the synergy theory is that I don’t think it exists out west beyond those top 4. CU and UU haven’t been in the P12 long enough for anyone else to care. The AZ schools are far enough away and still newer, so the big 4 don’t care as much (esp. UW and UO). And while in-state the big 4 care some about the little 4, nobody else cares about the little 4. I could understand taking 6 of the old P8 (no OrSU and WSU) for markets and rivalries, but it will hurt the money. Realistically, I don’t see how a merger can make sense at this point.
I also don’t believe there are sufficient B10 alumni and fans out west for the synergy to kick in. OSU may have 120,000 alumni in Columbus, but they have closer to 1M+ fans in the metro area (OSU games can draw over a 50% share in Columbus). In NYC and Philly you have some of that, especially with PSU (and RU). In DC there’s a bit of that with UMD. Out west there just isn’t much of that.
LikeLike
I’d be surprised if USC and UCLA weren’t pretty close to 50% of the Pac value. USC, UCLA, UW and 3 others and you get a significant part of the Pac 12. Just for value, you would probably take Stanford or Cal, but I think they would want both of them. So that gives you 5. You then choose between Oregon, Arizona, Arizona St. and Colorado. When Colorado left the Big 12, some sources said they had less than 1/12th of the value. Nebraska was only about the average.
Don’t think it takes more than 6 to cull most of the Pac 12 value. And maybe you could just take the 4 California schools.
Not saying this idea is good, but I do believe it makes short term financial sense.
LikeLike
Of those choices, UO is the clear winner. It’s brand has more value thanks to Nike plus it gives UW a rival. The CA4 is the heart of the problem. USC brings the value but you need some of the rest to get USC. UCLA is redundant but required. USC might want Stanford, UCLA might want Cal, Cal and Stanford would want each other. Can you even get an agreement without all 4? Unfortunately 4 mouths dilutes the value of USC, perhaps beyond being worth adding.
If you can add just 4 (USC, UCLA, UO and UW), it might work. Maybe the SF market can justify adding Cal or Stanford, but certainly not both. But I think all the presidents (B10 and P12) would want both.
LikeLike
@bullet – I don’t think it’s quite to that extent, although USC has an outsized impact in the Pac-12 since it has similar attributes as Texas: a huge national brand in a massive market with great academics on top of it.
This is where “conference realignment value” isn’t necessarily 100% connected to pure TV value. I can assure you that if Stanford and Cal wanted to join the Big Ten, those Big Ten presidents would be sending invites within two seconds. There’s not even a hemming or hawing there about what they’re worth to the TV contract. They would absolutely, 100% add the toughest school to gain acceptance to in the country (Stanford) and arguably the best public university in the country (Cal). The fact that they are the two schools most closely associated with Silicon Valley (where Big Ten alums actually have way more influence compared to Wall Street or DC) is the cherry on top.
Let’s put it this way: if we’re going to presume that the Big Ten would want to take, say, UVA, UNC and Georgia Tech from the ACC even above Florida State, Clemson and Miami due to academic profile and cultural fit (and a whole lot of people have argued this), then there honestly isn’t anyone from the Pac-12 that the Big Ten *wouldn’t* take other than Washington State and Oregon State. Everyone else in the Pac-12 is an AAU member and/or flagship and/or located *directly* in a major market (e.g. Arizona State). In contrast, Kansas is the only one that conceivably hits those marks from the remainder of the Big 12 (and their value is entirely due to basketball instead of football), so the roster depth schools with a lot of “conference realignment value” is so much deeper in the Pac-12.
That’s honestly what makes the exercise of a hypothetical raid by the Big Ten of the Pac-12 very difficult. For instance, Phoenix has one of the largest concentrations of Big Ten alums outside of the conference footprint itself. You can see this with the masses of Cubs fans and other Midwestern MLB teams that turn out every spring training. They even have Portillo’s *and* Lou Malnati’s in Phoenix since there are so many Chicago transplants. Does it make any real sense for the Big Ten to expand West and *not* include Arizona and/or Arizona State? It legitimately doesn’t to me – that’s one of the markets that provide the greatest synergy of existing Big Ten alums. It’s the same thing with the Denver market. To be sure, we’re not comparing adding Colorado and Arizona as matching the additions of Texas and Oklahoma – they’re not even in the same ballpark. However, the real comparison is if those additions make any less sense than adding UVA and UNC (as those would really be more about demographics and academics as opposed to football prowess, too). On that front, I think the comparison is probably closer than what a lot of people think.
LikeLike
Of course, after having said all of this, I don’t think it makes sense for the Big Ten to add Pac-12 schools outside of being on the margins (e.g. Colorado). Sure, it’s fun to think of having USC and UCLA in the conference, but having them on an island really isn’t workable long-term. The only way to integrate them is to add so many Pac-12 schools that we’re in the merger situation that I’ve described earlier and, as it stands, that helps the Pac-12 a whole lot more than it helps the existing Big Ten.
LikeLike
If you can add just 4 (USC, UCLA, UO and UW), it might work.
The dollars might work, but it’s pretty unlikely those four schools would join a conference where so many games are 2–3 time zones away.
Even if the rules permitted them to join only in football, I don’t think they would do it. (Never mind the nightmare of finding an agreeable conference for their other sports.)
LikeLike
I still don’t buy ASU. UA brings the state, including Phoenix. Tucson isn’t that far from Phoenix.
How much does it matter that so many of the midwesterners in AZ are old? They aren’t raising families there, they are retiring and dying.
https://www.azeconomy.org/2020/09/economy/destination-arizona-where-are-people-moving-from-and-why/
Where people are moving to AZ from.
LikeLike
The foremost crisis in Arizona is the rate of aquifer depletion. Lake Mead will soon dry up and those aquifers are being depleted at warp speed. Whe that water is gone, it’s all over amigos. We don’t need to bring a desert into the Big Ten. This article is from the National Geographic:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/140819-groundwater-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis
LikeLike
Frank,
“Sure, it’s fun to think of having USC and UCLA in the conference, but having them on an island really isn’t workable long-term.”
How many schools does it take to stop being on an island? With 4, that’s 6 western school games every year if they so choose (3 in B10, 3 OOC), plus 3 more B10 games at home. So even with their locked ND rivalry, USC could average 8.5 games out west every year. That doesn’t seem that bad.
LikeLike
Marc,
As I just noted to Frank, the 4 would only have to play 3 games in B10 country. 3.5 for USC with the ND rivalry.
The other sports are the problem, but some of their teams could play in the MPSF.
LikeLike
Brian,
“ The other sports are the problem, but some of their teams could play in the MPSF.”
I doubt that is the environment a large number of Olympians would prefer to join.
LikeLike
It’s for niche sports that the B10 doesn’t play, like water polo. There’s only so many schools where you can play that, mostly on the pacific coast. The P12 schools already have 36 teams playing in the MPSF, though I think the rules say they’d have to play in the B10 for indoor track & field. IU plays women’s water polo in the MPSF already, so there’s a link.
LikeLike
Brian,
“ …though I think the rules say they’d have to play in the B10 for indoor track & field.”
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought a FB only exception was what was being suggested as a relief for all other sports travel.
LikeLike
Nebraska AD on realignment.
LikeLike
Other notes from the same thread (just pasting text to avoid WordPress quarantine):
Alberts touches on the reported meetings between the Big Ten and the Pac 12 on a potential alliance in football. Without giving further detail, he says to expect change. More meetings are scheduled in Chicago and in Washington in the coming months, he said.
and
Alberts touching on the obvious: any realignment comes down to money, power and influence for the universities.
“It’s not comfortable to say, but the networks have a very significant say in what’s happening.”
LikeLike
It was reported the Big 10/Pac 12 scheduling alliance a few years back was killed by USC and Stanford. The Big 10 and the rest of the Pac 12 were for it. Maybe USC and Stanford are more amenable now.
LikeLike
USC and Stanford happen to be the two teams that Notre Dame schedules every year.
LikeLike
To be fair, the B10 was at 8 games back then. IA would certainly push back on it now. Many other schools might since it eliminates the freedom to schedule home and homes of your choosing. It’s not like OSU struggles to find good OOC games, for example.
LikeLike
They were directly asked, and both denied it. They were the consensus suspects before their statements, and we never heard anything more of those that objected.
LikeLike
It’s not like OSU struggles to find good OOC games, for example.
The Big Ten in general does not struggle to find such games. Every B10 team is required to schedule a P5 OOC opponent (with “P5” liberally construed). It’s far from clear you’d have a better schedule if they played the Pac-12 exclusively.
This season, for example, Washington and Oregon are already on the Big Ten’s menu. But so are Auburn, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame twice. There aren’t four remaining Pac-12 opponents that are better TV draws than those games.
LikeLike
Plus just looking at it, Ohio State already has 5 games scheduled against Oregon/Washington for the next decade+. I mean that already takes care of it given USC is probably less interested in adding it than others.
I’m just skeptical that these scheduling alliances mean that much given the schools already schedule for that, and both conferences are at 9 games.
LikeLike
Exactly. A so-called “scheduling alliance” gives the commishes something to point to and declare “We’re doing something” rather than doing nothing.
LikeLike
Well they can also show it to ESPN and Fox and say, “Look, you’ve got these guaranteed games. You should pay us more than if we schedule Missouri Valley conference schools.”
LikeLike
This ties back to some previous discussion:
“There’s a reasonable chance,” that if a team has to miss a game because of COVID protocols, it will be a forfeit and a loss rather than a no contest this season, Alberts said.
LikeLike
I’d listen to fake Dan Bebe long before Alberts…
LikeLike
I loved this one.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone make this argument but here goes: Instead of an alliance with the ACC and/or the Pac-12, the B1G should form an alliance with the SEC.
The SEC already gets the top recruits and produces the most NFL draft picks. Adding Texas and Oklahoma only going to accelerate that. Last year’s rivals top 25 recruiting classes consist of 10 SEC, 6 B1G, 4 ACC, 2 Pac-12, Notre Dame, Texas and Oklahoma. The SEC had 65 draft picks last year, B1G 44, ACC 42, Pac-12 28, Texas 5 and Oklahoma 5.
The B1G is doing great financially, the threat is that impressionable 18-year-old blue chip football recruits will become more and more convinced that playing in the SEC and going head-to-head with the best of the best is the only serious path to the NFL. We know that was a big factor in Texas leaving the Big 12, they were tired of losing in-state recruits to A&M.
Aligning with the ACC and Pac-12 sends the message that the power 4 is really the big, bad SEC and three others. Aligning with the SEC says the power 4 is really just a power 2. Recruits who go to B1G schools will play in the biggest stadiums, train in the most expensive facilities, and compete against the best of the best in the B1G and the SEC. Make sure a 12-team playoff can feature 3 B1G and 3 SEC teams every year. Ensure the best bowls feature B1G and SEC schools.
So why am I wrong?
LikeLike
“Recruits who go to B1G schools will play in the biggest stadiums, train in the most expensive facilities, and compete against the best of the best in the B1G and the SEC. Make sure a 12-team playoff can feature 3 B1G and 3 SEC teams every year. Ensure the best bowls feature B1G and SEC schools.
Didn’t you just describe the status quo? Even with a cap on teams from 1 conference, the B10 and SEC could get 2-3 teams each every year. The best bowls outside of the NY6 already feature the B10 and SEC, and several of the NY6 do as well (Rose, Sugar & Orange by contract, sometimes others as well). B10 recruits play in the biggest stadiums with expensive facilities and compete against the best.
The B10 and SEC have no need to align unless they are trying to form a league and separate from the rest of I-A, and neither of them wants that. The B10 doesn’t want to hurt the P12 and the SEC has too many rivals in the ACC that they want to keep around. I also think there would be blowback against the B10 and SEC, much as there is about the move of UT and OU to the SEC. The ACC, B12 remnants and P12 would band together to preserve themselves. They would probably isolate the B10 and SEC in all sports.
LikeLike
Didn’t you just describe the status quo? Even with a cap on teams from 1 conference, the B10 and SEC could get 2-3 teams each every year. The best bowls outside of the NY6 already feature the B10 and SEC, and several of the NY6 do as well (Rose, Sugar & Orange by contract, sometimes others as well).
I assume an alliance would try to break up some of those NY6 bowls in favor of match-ups with new ACC/Pac-12 friends. You were proposing a cap of one at-large playoff teams as a benefit of an alliance.
Agreed, becoming a voting bloc would make more sense. Try to split the CFP money equally no matter how many teams a conference gets in. Cap at-larges from any 1 conference.
The status quo is pretty good for the B1G! So keep it and lean into it rather than trying to prop up the ACC and Pac-12, who the B1G is long-term strategizing how to pick apart.
LikeLike
No, I didn’t propose capping at 1 at-large. I’ve said 3 total from a conference, maybe 4. Others have said 2 total. And if you can’t get a cap, then make all teams after the first pay minimally (like it is now).
Why would any of them want to break up their NYD bowls? Those games pay huge money. The next round of bowl contracts might feature more ACC/B10/P12 games, but the Rose and Orange are not being dropped. The Sugar will take a hit with the depleted B12.
It is more important to rein in ESPN and the SEC right now than expand.
LikeLike
“… and going head-to-head with the best of the best is the only serious path to the NFL. ”
Please tell Ben Roflensberger, Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, June Jones…
LikeLike
A current high school senior was 6 when Brett Favre retired and 2 when Jerry Rice retired.
LikeLike
Not the point.
You said “ the only serious path.” I was well aware of many athletes who were long retired well before I graduated HS. And that was before video recording was at all common place.
LikeLike
The nfl will find the talent. MLB doesn’t have a minor league system smaller than the Big’s.
LikeLike
I think he is skipping Sr. Year in order to NLI? I know some qb is, I believe was going to tOSU.
LikeLike
There is no NIL in high school, at least in Texas. Quinn took an online class to graduate this summer so he could enroll at tOSU. Will make at least 6 figures NIL this year (and I am sure he is hoping for 7) vs. nothing if he played his senior year in high school.
LikeLike
No, my point was that “impressionable 18-year-old blue chip football recruits will become more and more convinced that playing in the SEC and going head-to-head with the best of the best is the only serious path to the NFL
LikeLike
Logan,
You mean like mid last century before limited scholarships and roster sizes? Kings stockpiled talent, they always have. That’s partly why they’re called kings.
There is still only 11 on a team, 60 min in a game, and one ball on the field for a far larger population making up the recruiting pool. Some talent may aggregate, but other will disperse for various reasons, not the least of which is playing time/opportunity.
LikeLike
In general, recruits choose FBS over FCS, choose power 5 over group of 5, choose blue bloods over non-blue bloods. Elite recruits don’t choose UAB over Alabama because of playing time. If they have they choice, they choose Alabama. Blue bloods haul in 25 blue chip recruits year after year despite there not being playing time for everyone because elite recruits want to play where they believe the will have the best chance of making the NFL.
The danger for B1G is that recruits start choosing South Carolina, Kentucky and Missouri over schools like Penn State, Michigan and Nebraska because they start to perceive a prestige gap between the SEC and the B1G. 17-year-olds don’t care about TV revenue. And you can guarantee Saban, Mullins, Jimbo, Riley, Kiffin, Kirby, etc will play up the advantages of being in “college football’s best league”.
LikeLike
Logan,
With the 1 free transfer rule and the transfer portal, recruiting advantages don’t mean as much as they used to. Even if the kings get all the best recruits, many of them turn around and leave in a year or two when they aren’t starters. Then other schools can pick up good players used to CFB and with more realistic expectations for their playing time.
LikeLike
A current high school senior was 6 when Brett Favre retired and 2 when Jerry Rice retired.
…….and that little boy is named Quinn Evers and he just enrolled at Ohio State.
LikeLike
NLI !!!
High schoolers turning pro, whether they reach the nfl or not.
LikeLike
You are wrong in suggesting that the B1G would be part of 2 premier conferences if they proposed and agreed to a cap of 3 in a 12 way playoff. The SEC will fight for no cap, and if there is one it will be 4 at a minimum. The SEC already gets 25% (1 of 4 or 3 of 12) in the playoff every year.. and has gotten 50% in a few years. Why would the SEC agree to such a bad deal for them? Why would the B1G propose it unless they believe they are inferior to the SEC?
LikeLike
I didn’t say a cap of 3, I meant a min of 3 per year.
LikeLike
Sure the SEC will fight for no cap. And if they lose that battle, they’ll want to set it high. But everyone involved knows that only the B10 and SEC would have exceeded 3 teams since 2014, and with OU and UT the SEC might have gotten 5 twice in 7 years. Why would they allow that if everyone but the SEC, including the B10, is willing to live with 3?
The SEC has gotten 2 of 4, but even with OU and UT they never would’ve gotten 6 of 12. So be a little careful about throwing 50% out there.
If the only deal offered is a cap of 3 in order to expand to 12, would they rather stay with the current 4?
The B10 would support it for several reasons:
1. They aren’t evil like the SEC is
2. They actually care about other conferences, especially the P12
3. The extra money for a 4th team probably wouldn’t be much anyway
4. They know that the 16-team SEC with OU and UT is likely to get more spots than anyone else
5. It will reduce the advantage the SEC gets for adding UT and OU
LikeLike
I laughed out loud when I first read about this alliance. Such a transparent act of self-gratification by three emasculated newbies in the aftermath of Sankeygeddon. It makes absolutely no sense for the B1G except as an act of charity. Despite the comments ad-nauseam about this being a merger-free solution to the SEC ‘s masterstroke, it will not add one cent to the B1G’s next media deal. They’re already scheduling to their hearts desire. This entire conversation hinges on the answer to one simple question that rarely gets amy play here. How does USC get paid. USC controls the fate of the PAC 12 and no one else. Keeping USC in the fold means paying them their due. The idea that they are going to lock themselves into a new grant of rights agreement without locking down a yearly payout commensurate with their elite status is, to use Frank’s term, Bonkers. A few of the more prolific ‘ruminators’ here actually believe sentimentality will rule the day. Ridiculous. It’s SEC money or they will pack up their toys (five of their friends) and leave. Likely to the Big Ten. OWNING IP/brands is what moves the needle, not borrowing them with some silly, non-binding alliance. I tend to think, when push comes to shove, the PAC will pay up. It’s a small price to pay to save the conference. In any regard, the status quo will not suffice. Also, a few days ago, I argued that there is no passion for the PAC out here, which was met with snooty guffaws by the powers that be. As Staples’ chart confirms, there is no passion for the PAC out here. Mild interest at best. In closing, I would like to congratulate USC on its future windfall, or admittance into the BIG20. Either way, they win. As my husband Dave says, bank on it.
LikeLike
I nominate my boss and U of Iowa grad Mark Shapiro as B1G commissioner!!! (after Warren gets canned of course). Fret not boys, I won’t be back until one of us is proven right. I know some of you are feisty, but you’ll just have to wait! -Peace, love and 1,000 comment blog posts for all! -Danielle
LikeLike
Who are the three emasculated newbies? Is the B1G among them? Just wondering, since the next SEC and next B1G contracts may be very close in value. If $70 million or so per year is emasculated, well some teams will just have to live with the horror.
Actually the alliance makes sense if it deals with things such as merely voting together.
I believe that in theory, everyone has a veto so that one conference could stop expansion unless it got its way. I expect that in the real world if one conference disagreed with something, comity would probably result in that conference conceding any point.
If three P5 conferences agree on something, such as placing a maximum of three teams from one league in a 12 team playoff (25% after all), then there is no reason that they should back off. Certainly as long as the three agree, no league not named SEC will object to having a limit from any one league. Would the SEC blow up expansion demanding the right to send 4 or 5 teams? I doubt it.
I do not think that the ACC or PAC expect more than three teams of the 12 in the foreseeable future, so that leaves the SEC and the B1G. Personally I would be shocked to see four B1G teams out of 12 unless it is an extraordinary season to say the least.
I think that with UT and OU, the SEC expects four or more of the 12 with some frequency. (Perhaps the SEC now expects it nearly every year.) So long as the B1G is not greedy, a limit of 3 per league would be a fitting response to Shankeygeddon. Imagine UO being 4th in the SEC and not making the 12. That would be fun.
Yes, the alliance might agree to four teams from one league, but they should not. Three are plenty. If a team is the fourth choice from a conference should they really be qualified to make a 12 team playoff? Let in an extra G5 team. One of the best parts of March Madness is the Cinderella making it to the Sweet 16 or further. Have one less SEC team and one more potential Cinderella.
Plus, as others have suggested, have fewer of the “playoff” games in SEC territory, etc. Push back against the ESPN controlling playoff viewing, etc. Of course this requires other bidders.
An alliance of votes certainly levels the ESPN-SEC situation.
LikeLike
“Who are the three emasculated newbies?”
I think she meant the 3 conference commissioners.
“I do not think that the ACC or PAC expect more than three teams of the 12 in the foreseeable future, so that leaves the SEC and the B1G. Personally I would be shocked to see four B1G teams out of 12 unless it is an extraordinary season to say the least.”
https://spoz851.wixsite.com/powerdigits/post/what-do-we-see-in-the-12-team-cfp-retrospectively
The B10 would’ve had 4 teams in 2016 (2, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2), the SEC 4 in 2018 and 2020 (3, 1, 1, 3, 4, 3, 4). The others never would’ve had more than 3. Including OU (and UT, though they never would’ve qualified), the SEC would be +1 in every year except 2014 (3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 5). But in reality if OU got in, that likely came at the expense of another SEC team losing to them and not getting in. So 5 is possible, but 4 seems more realistic. I think the B10 could live with a cap of 3 as it would rarely hurt the B10 but it would more often constrain the SEC.
LikeLike
USC hasn’t been paid on par with the other top schools in a long time. Why will this time be any different? And where is the evidence that the B10 wants a western wing, or that USC is willing to leave half of the P12 behind and join an eastern conference in all sports?
LikeLike
Most seem to think that the GOR is ironclad. Assuming that ACC schools get 20 Million less per year then BIG schools how long is it until Clemson says screw this and looks to leave the ACC.
Now depending on what was said prior to the GOR being signed, could Clemson say, “We signed the GOR in good faith.” “You (ACC) said we would get x network but that didn’t happen in a timely manner, x number of $$$ for TV Revenue. Since you haven’t fulfilled your end of the agreement, we are declaring the GOR null and void.”
Now I don’t presume to know what was said or promised but if there was some target not met would Clemson have a leg to stand on?
OK Attorneys take it away….
LikeLike
@Doug – Unless that promise was actually in the GOR agreement, then it’s a very difficult argument. A court is going to look at the four corners of the contract.
One thing that should be clear to everyone: a GOR agreement is actually a very simple legal document. (I remember seeing the Big 12’s GOR posted a few years ago.) It’s a clear, unambiguous grant of media rights for the length of the contract with very little else. GOR agreements are also quite common in the entertainment industry and other fields – there seems to be a mistaken belief out there among a lot of fans that GOR agreements are somehow untested contract vehicles that could be held unenforceable, but that’s not the case at all. Frankly, what makes the GOR an effective legal agreement is *because* it’s simple: there aren’t caveats, exceptions, explicit liquidated damages for breach, or anything else other than the grant of rights itself along with an acknowledgment of consideration.
Assuming that the ACC GOR looks like the Big 12 GOR, it’s going to be enforceable. The real question in any case where a school leaves with time left on the GOR (as is the case with Texas and Oklahoma) is measuring the damages as a result. Note that UT and OU have taken great pains to state that their move to the SEC is happening in 2025, which is effectively an acknowledgment that they believe that the GOR is enforceable until then. In practicality, no one believes that they’re staying in the Big 12 until 2025, but the GOR is serving its purpose: it’s going to force UT and OU to pay quite a bit if they want to leave early.
LikeLike
New post today!
LikeLike
OK, should Purdue fire the coach AND the asst athletic director?
https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2021/08/18/purdue-womens-basketball-coach-sharon-versyp-accused-creating-toxic-hostile-environment/8178175002/
LikeLike
Pingback: Where in the World is Carmen San Diego State? Mapping Out Big 12 Expansion Strategies – FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT