Jon Wilner reported today that the Big Ten is adding USC and UCLA as early as 2024 and multiple other reporters have confirmed. There could be an announcement as early as tonight. I’ll be honest: I have been quite skeptical of predictions of any major moves by the Big Ten in the wake of Texas and Oklahoma leaving for the SEC and thought that we were in the end game for power conference realignment. Clearly, that was way off base.
While the SEC adding UT and OU involved the movement of two massive brand names, it was still in some ways a small “c” conservative expansion with schools in states that either overlapped or were contiguous with the SEC geographic footprint. At the same time, it was a rare expansion that actually reinstituted rivalries (particularly Texas-Texas A&M and Texas-Arkansas) more than breaking them up.
There’s nothing small “c” conservative with this Big Ten expansion. This is now a legitimate coast-to-coast conference spanning from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles. If USC and UCLA are the only Pac-12 schools coming to the Big Ten, they’ll be leaving their regional peers and rivals entirely.
Of course, the immediate question for me is whether USC and UCLA are really going to be the only Pac-12 schools going to the Big Ten. I’ve long thought that for USC and UCLA to viably be a part of the Big Ten, it would take an expansion of several more Pac-12 schools to the point where it would almost be a full merger. The Pac-12 has several other AAU members in key markets, namely Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah and Colorado. Arizona State is located directly in the Phoenix market that’s one of the largest hubs for Big Ten alums outside of the conference footprint itself.
Yet, that’s counterbalanced by the fact that USC and UCLA are the clear financial lynchpins to the Pac-12: they are the blue blood brand names in football and basketball, respectively, located in the league’s largest and most important market of Los Angeles. If USC and UCLA have already been convinced to come to the Big Ten alone, it’s an open question about how much value any other additional Pac-12 schools would bring to the table at least financially. The Big Ten would instead be considering non-financial factors at that point such as institutional fit and long-term demographic goals (which could point to the league wanting to be in places like the San Francisco Bay Area regardless of the immediate financial impact).
People throughout all of college sports and media industry were perplexed by why the Big Ten TV rights negotiations, which were initially projected to be completed by Memorial Day, have been delayed. We now know the answer. This goes way beyond TV rights, though. Even with though the Big Ten expansion with Rutgers and Maryland went into new territories for the league, that was still more of an extension of what the league had already started when it added Penn State in the 1990s. There was still a firm profile of what a “Big Ten school” looked like just as we generally have a good sense of the profile of an “Ivy League school” or “SEC school” or… up until now, a “Pac-12 school.” In contrast, a Big Ten that’s now on the West Coast is going to completely alter how we look at the league.
Up until two hours ago, I thought the Armageddon scenarios for power conference realignment were off the table for the next decade or so and the SEC expansion with UT/OU effectively caused complete paralysis among everyone else (which is why the initial response of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC was to form a generally toothless Alliance). I certainly didn’t believe that it would be the Pac-12 that would be vulnerable to a poaching by its Rose Bowl partner of the Big Ten. If anything, the main long-term expansion prospects that I saw for the Big Ten were in the ACC. It just goes to show that all of the turmoil in the college sports business in general are upending the assumptions of even people like me that quirkily follow conference realignment. Some of those wild conference realignment scenarios that I was posting over a decade ago suddenly don’t look so wild anymore.
(Image from UCLA Alumni Association)
Follow @frankthetank111
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
I really believe this is just the first domino.
Oregon/Washington to the Big Ten is the obvious next step in my mind. They can ditch Oregon State/Washington State using USC/UCLA as an excuse.
Then maybe ND + Stanford or something else.
Either way, this doesn’t feel anywhere near done. USC/UCLA probably need at least 2 others (Oregon/Washington) to create travel partners that they can play annually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@zeek
I really believe this is just the first domino.
What’s bothering me is Oregon St and Washington St can’t be so much of a drag that the Big Ten money is double or triple. There must be some “synergy” from adding the PAC media markets to the Big Ten to make this whole a lot more than the some of its parts. If so, then I find it a bit hard to see where it stops. San Francisco, Oakland , Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver, and SLC all seem like each would be additive.
LikeLike
Yeah but at $100 million shares, there aren’t that many schools that can justify joining without denting the earnings power or diluting match ups. We want to see USC, Ohio State, etc. playing each other at a reasonable pace.
Maybe just Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Colorado (if we’re leaving off Arizona State as non-AAU).
I think Utah, Oregon State, Washington State are on the outside for sure.
LikeLike
Mike,
The problem is that Cal and Stanford don’t have big CFB/MBB brands, and SF residents don’t care all that much about them. USC and UCLA may not get the BTN into SF, but I don’t know that Cal and Stanford would either.
I think the brands of UO and UW make them likely candidates. But if the B10 adds too many, it will basically need to split back into the B10 and P10. UO and UW would make 18, and the B10 will always leave a spot reserved for ND just in case.
New W14?:
WSU, OrSU, Cal, Stanford, UA, ASU, Utah, CU
Baylor, TT, TCU, UH, OkSU, KU
LikeLike
ND cares about Stanford. That would be enough.
LikeLike
If ND deigns to join the B10, sure. But Stanford needs somewhere to play until 2036.
LikeLike
Nope, ND football has no limitations or exit fees because they aren’t a part of the ACC (according to Dinich).
They just have to pay a GOR fee for basketball+Olympic sports which isn’t that big I’d imagine.
If ND wants to come to the Big Ten, the Big Ten would probably be willing to pay that.
LikeLike
Or ND joins for just football now and leaves other sports later. Either way their football situation is apparently free.
LikeLike
Not really, what ND cares about is the end of the season trip to California. When the PAC-12 redid their schedules, USC and Stanford were grandfathered into having an open date for the last game of the season. If the B1G can offer that roadtrip ND is listening.
LikeLike
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/news/notre-dame-join-big-ten-future-irish/zteje9akz0h2iwgkwlgeuehd
That grant of rights deal includes language that if Irish choose to join a conference in football before 2036, they are contractually obligated to join the ACC.
When ND went to the ACC (non-FB), part of the deal was that they couldn’t join any other conference but the ACC until 2036. Was that not binding? Did the fine print leave a loophole? I know they can leave the ACC, but can they actually bring football to the B10 before 2036?
LikeLike
Supposedly Heather Dinich is saying that only applies to non-football. But who knows, we’ll find out soon enough.
LikeLike
Or ND joins for just football now and leaves other sports later. Either way their football situation is apparently free.
Isn’t there an NCAA rule that you could only join another conference for football if your primary conference doesn’t offer it?
A Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Notre Dame expansion to get to 20 would be interesting. 4 pods of five.
LikeLike
Here’s a blast from the past – remember this?
So if we look at where Big Ten alumni are concentrated plus co-located in major TV markets – http://bl.ocks.org/simzou/6459889 – we find seven viable options:
Atlanta – Nielsen TV Market rank 9 – Georgia Tech
Boston – #7 – Boston College
Dallas Fort Worth – #5 – TCU
Denver – #17 – Colorado
Phoenix – #13 – Arizona State
San Francisco – #6 – Stanford
Seattle – #12 – Washington
You could make a good argument that FSU or Miami would bring the State of Florida, but the BTN is already in basic cable throughout Florida. Oregon is a good brand but the Nielsen rank is 22. Clemson Nielsen rank is 37.
LikeLike
Colin,
Viable options for what? The B10 isn’t looking to add BC or TCU. GT would require UVA and UNC coming as well, which seems unlikely for now.
You give market rankings, but that’s just for 1 city. Brands cover fans in the whole country. UO’s brand is much bigger than Portland’s market (thanks to Nike). And most of SF doesn’t care about Stanford’s teams. RU being near NYC had huge value back in the day, but I don’t think the same effect applies now with Stanford and SF and BTN (but I could be wrong).
I’d also guess ASU is a non-starter academically. The market is nice and full of B10 alumni, but UA is the AAU school.
I think it’s best to look at the pros and cons of each candidate through the lens of what will make ND most likely to join as well. That’s where Stanford really brings value. CU is a rival for NE but otherwise pretty isolated. UW is a brand and brings Seattle. UO is a brand and brings Portland. And all of them help give ND the national exposure they want.
LikeLike
Brian: “Viable options for what? The B10 isn’t looking to add BC or TCU. GT would require UVA and UNC coming as well, which seems unlikely for now.”
I agree. I was just taking a look at the criteria that we used last time around: top TV markets and concentrations of B1G alumni. That’s how we ended up with Rutgers and Maryland.
I think BC, TCU, ASU or Stanford are highly unlikely choices. Stanford might sound good but it is a small school with a small fan base. I’m not sure that Oregon and Washington would want to leave the PAC. They certainly won’t bring the value that USC and UCLA do.
I question that the Big Ten will expand further but if ND comes in and we need another school to get to an even number. Colorado seems the most likely. It’s contiguous and many are their fans were unhappy with the PAC-12 before USC and UCLA chose to leave. They’re probably climbing the walls today.
LikeLike
Why do we need an even number if there are no divisions? 11 worked for a long time.
LikeLike
Big Ten presidents want Cal and Stanford as a tandem for their academic heft (and since Berkeley is arguably America’s premier public university, I can’t imagine the 14 B1G presidents from state schools will want to reject it) Bring the Bears and Cardinal, alongside Washington and Oregon.
LikeLike
Wall Street Journal ranks UCLA ahead of Berkeley
24 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 16 65 4 236 $17,357
▶
27 University of California, Los Angeles 18 134 12 19 $15,718
▶
33 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 22 96 195 309 $10,085
▶
36 University of California, Berkeley 19 254 110 56 $18,522
▶
40 University of California, Davis 30 196 223 13 $15,886
▶
43 University of California, San Diego 29 236 312 13 $14,864
▶
45 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 27 300 25 63 $14,660
▶
45 University of Washington-Seattle 34 190 254 82 $10,692
▶
47 United States Military Academy 56 23 89 >400 –
▶
48 Purdue University West Lafayette 49 112 4 266 $12,684
LikeLike
Agreed. This is a “hundred year” relationship they’re working on. So the AAU thing matters a lot.
The valve of Pac-12 assets to the Big Ten has turned on…Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington are flowing for sure. That’s 20 for the Big Ten.
It could stop there. But Colorado (with Nebraska as a contingent state and old rival PLUS Denver’s market)…and Arizona (with Phoenix’s large alumni base and UA’s proximity PLUS contingent status with SoCal and Colorado) seem like easy pickings too. Neither are home run sports additions…but what’s the end goal?
24 seems like a nice number to stop out for this round…so who fills out the dance card? Is it Utah? Kansas? Notre Dame? Arizona State?
LikeLike
How do you know the Big Ten presidents one Stanford and Cal? Do you give advice or counsel to them?
LikeLike
You should take a bow. You called this last July throughout the comments in this thread: https://frankthetank.org/2021/07/29/the-art-of-deception-big-12-vs-espn/#comments
LikeLike
Yeah as soon as Texas, OU went to the SEC, everything pointed to USC making the same decision to go to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
How Big will the league get?
LikeLike
Does this (having USC) give Big Ten any more leverage with Notre Dame?
Corollary: could a Stanford/Notre Dame add work?
LikeLike
Timing is interesting. ACC fans lament the current far dated contract, but the grant of rights signed alongside it makes their teams (and Notre Dame) untouchable while the SEC and Big Ten look around.
If it is just these two, can the PAC-12 still raid the Big 12? I am not sure it wants to anyway, but I lean to yes.
First PAC-12 replacement definitely San Diego State in my view. They were too far away for other power conferences and didn’t make sense with 4 California schools, but now provide the PAC with a southern California replacement.
LikeLike
So much for THE ALLIANCE and all their aspirational flowery prose about doing things the right way, and standing up to the dirty ole ESS-EEE-SEE.
Turns out The Alliance was more like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, only to have the B1G launch Operation Barbarosa on the P-12 a year later.
Seriously, as I wrote this time last year, the UT & OU to the SEC, was the first step toward a Disney League and a FOX League for college football. USC & UCLA to the B1G is just the next step. I wouldn’t be shocked it every P-12 school – except Oregon State and Washington State – eventually get a B1G invite to get to 24. Then the SEC responds by picking their best eight in the ACC – UNC, Duke, NC State, VA Tech, UVA, Miami, Florida State & Clemson – when available.
In the words of Frank the Tank, serious baller move by the B1G. Congratulations on the second best expansion move.
LikeLike
I’d agree on second best if this is it.
But I don’t think this is it. Add in Washington/Oregon and it’s probably bigger than Texas/OU to the SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t think Ore/Wash along with UCLA/SC to the B1G eclipses OK/TX to the SEC.
Now if the B1G can snag Notre Dame by hanging out the carrots of annual conference games with historical foes Purdue, Michigan, USC and Stanford…
LikeLike
I would disagree. It already eclipses the SEC from a financial standpoint. The B1G will be in the top 3 markets in the country along with a number of other top markets including Philly and DC.
SEC is still top from a competitive or talent perspective but financially it is now the B1G.
LikeLike
The problem is NYC (19m) LA (13.2m) & Chicago (9.5m) are not college towns. I would argue that DFW (7.6m), Houston (7.1m) and Atlanta (6m) have more college football TV watching fans than NYC, LA & Chicago.
Locking down the second most populous state (TX) that is college football crazy with the four most popular college football teams in the state (UT, A&M, OK & LSU) is more important than locking down the second most populous city (LA) that doesn’t care about college football.
Again, if the B1G can snag Notre Dame down the line with this move, the B1G wins.
LikeLike
Alan,
I agree with you.
UT + OU > USC + UCLA + any other P12 schools
USC + UCLA + ND + any other P12 schools > UT + OU (but not by much)
LikeLike
In the long term, I think the SEC’s 16 is better than the Big Ten’s 16 (assuming the Big Ten stops there). That said, the SEC is still held back by the long deal they signed before the Big 12 started to crack; it’s going to be awhile before it can take the 2nd & 3rd tier deals to market. The Big Ten is going to get more money in the short term because it’s selling rights now.
LikeLike
And Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
May I be the first to say “R.I.P. Big Paclantic Alliance
LikeLike
Gene Smith says its not dead yet. He might be the only one to think so.
LikeLike
1. I hate this. I hate it for the B10, for the P12, for college sports, for all the student-athletes taking weekday red-eye flights, for the lost rivalries, for P12 fans, …. This is worse than UT and OU to the SEC, since at least they were regional additions.
2. I hope that the schools came to the B10 rather than being poached, but this is still wrong by the B10.
3. I’m shocked. I know the money is huge, but USC and UCLA are going to lose a lot of rivalries and regional games. And a lot of that money is going to go into travel expenses.
4. I’m surprised UCLA left Cal, and that it was allowed to happen. The UC system is very political.
5. Noon ET games for UCLA and USC? 8pm PT games for eastern teams? Are western fans clamoring for more games against the bottom half of the B10?
6. Why would you not also take UO and UW to complete the coastal grab (if they want in)? More local rivalry games for them, and more big markets with good football brands.
7. P12/B12 merger into a new conference (so they can dump the B12 newbies and deadweight from both sides) announced in 3, 2, 1, …
LikeLike
Brian – No more moral high ground for the B1G. The PAC has been the B1G’s wing man for decades with the Rose Bowl, shared TV contracts, opting out of the Bowl Alliance, and initially shutting down the 2020 COVID season..
This is like Brutas stabbing Caesar.
If you can get past that, its a really big power move.
LikeLike
Just mail the B1G baseball trophy to Westwood. Rename it the annual Jackie Robinson commendation trophy.
Do we now get Bill Walton as a BTN announcer?
I guess the LA press can continue to ignore college sports just as well in the B1G as the Pac, once this story blows over.
Go Dodgers, Angles, Rams, Chargers, Clippers, Lakers, LA Galaxy, LA FC, etc.
LikeLike
At least B10 baseball teams could get some conference games in early in the season. USC and UCLA host all their home games, then finish the season on long road trips.
LikeLike
If the Pac-12 schools that matter all join the Big Ten (let’s say 5 or 6 of the original Pac-8), does it really matter?
LikeLike
Alan,
You know better than that. Moral high ground is something you claim, not something you actually earn. The B10 will continue to claim it.
It might also mean the end of the Rose Bowl as an obstacle to CFP expansion, or as a relevant game. Will anyone care about the Rose Bowl and it being B10 vs P12 in the future if USC and UCLA are in the B10? Is UW vs UCLA in the Rose Bowl exciting, or just a P12 game?
LikeLike
But after today, that claim will be very hollow.
LikeLike
Does that stuff really matter?
Look at politics today; look at the Supreme Court. Not to delve deeply here, but it’s just raw power that matters.
You have votes or you don’t. Nothing else matters.
College football is now the same thing. You either have the TV markets, big brands, and all the rest that matters, or you don’t.
All that stuff ended when Texas/OU joined the SEC. At that point, this path was basically set.
LikeLike
Alan,
It was hollow before.
LikeLike
The new Big Ten with 24 teams will make the Rose Bowl their conference championship game. 😉
LikeLike
Nebraska to the Big 10 was the one that changed college sports. BC to the ACC changed college sports in the east, ultimately killing the Big East, but Nebraska was the first true power to move and it weakened the Big 12 significantly perceptually, although not as much financially.
LikeLike
No. Penn State to the B10 was the first domino
LikeLike
The first domino was many moons ago when Arkansas leaving the old Southwest Conference for the SEC.
LikeLike
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/entertainment/television/2010/06/12/conference-realignment-timeline-1987-to-now/61236177007/
PSU joined the B10 earlier in 1990 than AR went to the SEC. PSU just took a year longer to fully join athletically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, but they were an indie and so didn’t impact any conferences.
As for Arkansas, the SWC was already doomed and while they were #3 in the SWC, they weren’t a power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bullet,
PSU expanded the B10, and many at the time said it led to the other independents joining conferences. I won’t claim cause and effect, but it was the first major power to move in recent history. Just because it didn’t weaken another conference doesn’t mean it doesn’t count in my book. It led to the end of the major independents (except ND), and that was a big change to college sports.
LikeLike
Slight topic change as we’ve seemed to have beaten “who else is the B1G gonna add” question to death: assuming the era of the “Big 2” is upon us, and also assuming that major governance changes are afoot (jettisoning the NCAA, NIL, players as employees, etc.) what are the odds that college football realigns with some sort of “farm system” in place. I’m thinking something like Alabama has a relationship with one or more G5 (or even the leftovers of the P5) schools and they place freshman/sophomore players at those lower schools to get in-field experience. Give UAB a million or so a year, and here are some players I want you to help develop. When our current starters graduate/lose eligibility the developmental players transfer back to Alabama.
This gives lower schools access to some 5 star players, helping sell tickets with a better quality product, and earn some additional $$$ from the formalized relationship.
LikeLike
With the transfer portal an official farm system is not required. Now athletes that were not offered at their desired school either through not being noticed or late (i.e. college) development can transfer to a higher ranked school after a year or two of good performance.
LikeLike
Fortune favors the bold! Very happy to hear the news today. Expansion will continue as long as revenue per school continues to grow… and with streaming services now getting into the mix, that’s bound to happen. I’d like to add Ore and Wash next. Not sure how long we’ll have to wait for that…
LikeLike
Hard to believe unless you check a map but if the B1G took USC/UCLA/Az St/Colorado, we would still be a contiguous conference and really less spread out than you would imagine.
LikeLike
And AZ St has an ice hockey team.
LikeLike
Goodbye “college” athletics. Thanks NLI. The need for massive $s to bid on FB recruits contributed, if not drove the speed of these moves, moves that are anathema to the idea of college athletic rivalries, conferences, and associations.
Disappointed in the B1G acquiesce. Also, NEITHER school wrestles!
LikeLike
But now they can afford to add wrestling 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah, ‘cause money was an issue at U$C.
UCLA dropped just after having an ncaa Hwt champ, and a couple tremendous recruiting classes that dispersed to be integral to Iowa and OU, with some World and Olympic golds to come for a couple of them.
LikeLike
I read and I officially don’t know what’s real or not.
I don’t know what I would do if I was Savvy Jack Swarbrick. If the Pac-12 loses their headliner and largest state’s flagship, the PAC is toast. The BXII is meaningless, and the ACC is a sinking ship. Even if you take the best of the rest: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, FSU, UNC, Kansas, Clemson, etc. there’s not enough brands available to form a competitive third option.
It might be time to fall on the sword, join the B1G, and try to get them to make us Southern Cal’s primary rival. It may be well worth $50mil to get off the sinking ship.
This blows.
LikeLike
See my post above. Utah out, and Notre Dame in.
LikeLike
While everyone recognizes that Rutgers was the huge winner in the expansion lottery, the powers that be at U Maryland are looking pretty darn smart. They left an ACC which is financially almost on life support, to get into one of the two super conferences.
LikeLike
It’s so nice to be proven right (as Frank knows, I was the one, under another username, who championed Maryland’s move to the Big Ten a decade ago; at the time, that idea was considered not only out of the box, but out of the neighborhood). The kicker: In 2014, I moved from Virginia to Los Angeles, and two years from now I’ll be able to watch Terrapin teams — football, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s soccer, a resurgent baseball program — play in town (OK, SC has no men’s soccer team, but UCLA does).
LikeLike
Hi again y’all
This sucks for college athletics.
LikeLike
While it’s better to be on the Big Ten side than the Pac-12 side here, yes, it does suck.
I always respected the Pac-12 as the Big Ten’s West Coast mirror: they were all institutional fits with a clear identity.
This is distinct from the UT and OU move to the SEC in my mind. For anyone that has been reading this blog for over 12-13 years at this point, so much of it was based on the fact that Texas wasn’t in its optimal home in the Big 12. It didn’t fit institutionally in that league (especially after the wave of defections in the early-2010s) even beyond the financial and sports aspects.
In contrast, the Pac-12 was the perfect institutional fit for USC and UCLA. This was purely a money grab, which worries me for the long term if these are the only 2 schools that the Big Ten adds. (It makes me think more that this is going to be a much deeper raid of the Pac-12. The Big Ten is likely going to be able to take *whoever* it wants from that league starting today.)
LikeLike
No way the Big Ten only adds two from the Pac 12. I think it’s going to be a minimum of 4, and most likely 6 or 8.
LikeLike
I love this as a long time loyal Big 10 fan originally from LA. I just wish there was room for Pitt at the party.
LikeLike
A conference is 2 things:
1) a source of money and/or prestige
2) a set of schools you would like to have on your schedule, home and away.
Throughout realignment, every major school that moved (with the possible exception of Maryland), has a good argument that they improved their home & away schedules from their fans’ perspective. Interestingly, many schools that didn’t move (such as Texas 10 years ago or FSU when they seemed to have a chance to join the SEC with A&M) stuck their fans with a worse home and away schedule by not moving.
This move by the 2 California schools is the first one where I think it’s clear the local fans will be less interested in the new overall schedule. The Kings of the Big Ten will get headlines, but the 2nd-tier schools of Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. will probably draw less interest than schools like Arizona, Stanford, and Washington.
I think adding 2-4 more Pac schools would go a long way to addressing that…and that the Big Ten needs to do it even if it doesn’t completely add up in dollars and cents for the national deals. If UCLA and USC can each play 3 current Pac 12 schools as annual conference games + 2 more of its most passionate rivals in the non-conference, the fans will probably be happy in the long-term.
LikeLike
m(Ag),
I understand your premise, but I’m not sure it’s true. P12 fans often show so little interest that I’m not sure how much this hurts. Does replacing UA, ASU, UU, CU, OrSU, WSU and Cal with B10 teams really matter much to them? They keep ND and UCLA. They can schedule Stanford if they want. They lose interesting games against UW and UO, but add OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, IA and MSU. I think it might be a net upgrade, especially with B10 alumni available to buy tickets out west.
LikeLike
Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Notre Dame to 20. Bank on it.
LikeLike
Watch for Apple to be mystery rights partner. Their bid is in for a slice.
LikeLike
Assuming we’re now in the endgame phase, does this create a path for the Big Ten and SEC to partner up and systematically dismantle the ACC too?
The ACC GOR goes away if the majority of the schools in the conference leave, so 8 defections would do it – 4 to SEC, 4 to B1G.
Add these schools to the mega power conferences, as well as any remaining additions from the PAC to the B1G, and we’ll finally be where many predicted about a decade ago.
LikeLike
I think the B1G and SEC will continue to expand. The open question is how big do they get? 18? 20? 24? I doubt they go any bigger than 24. I think the shopping lists for both conferences are something like the following:
B1G:
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Notre Dame
4. Stanford
5. Cal
6. UNC
7. Duke
8. Virginia
9. Washington
10. Oregon
11. Colorado
12. Arizona
13. Utah
14. Arizona State
bottom of the list: Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
I’m guessing they take 4, 6, or 10 of the above schools. The schools lower down at he bottom the list have almost no chance.
For the SEC it’s:
1. Notre Dame
2. UNC
3. Duke
4. Virginia
5. Florida State
6. Miami
7. Clemson
8. Virginia Tech
9. NC State
10. Georgia Tech
11. Louisville
bottom of the list: West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Kansas State, Pitt, Wake Forest
I’m guessing they take 2, 4, or 8 of the above schools. The schools lower down at the bottom of the list have almost no chance.
There will then be a couple of lesser semi-major conferences, one in the east, one in the west. Add in schools like BYU, San Diego State, Boise State, UCF, CIncinatti, Memphis, etc.
LikeLike
I read something somewhere that the ACC had an out of the GoR if they expand. Will be interesting to hear which schools are all the sudden bullish about “expansion” as a way to leave while the getting’s good.
LikeLike
I saw that too. Expansion for contraction’s sake is a new one.
LikeLike
If you are wondering about Notre Dame.
LikeLike
If you are wondering about Notre Dame
LikeLike
College sports have lost their way…..RIP
LikeLike
If you ask me, the changes to the transfer portal and NIL money have been terrible for college football. Everything is changing. What it boils down to is survival of the fittest… those who adapt quickest will reap the benefits. That’s the way it is. To stay competitive schools need to recruit the best players, work the transfer portal, get their players as much money as they can via NIL and conferences must continue to expand. I love the nostalgia and tradition of college football but it’s big business now.
LikeLike
“What it boils down to is survival of the xxxxxxx” richest…
Fixed it for you.
LikeLike
I think the transfer portal and the NIL happened in response to all the realignment shenanigans, not the cause of them. Schools would be doing exactly what they’re doing now if there was no NiL or change to transfer portal regs. The money in FB/MBB became so high it was basically insane to try to treat the primary workers who produce your product as “students”.
LikeLike
What this big realignment move potentially means for the SEC academically:
Right now the SEC has 5 AAU schools:
Vanderbilt
Texas
Texas A&M
Florida
Missouri
They also have 3 more schools whose research numbers are at least on the lower fringes of the AAU:
Oklahoma
Georgia
Kentucky
If the SEC does a raid of the ACC as predicted, they could end up with the following:
AAU schools:
UNC
Duke
Virginia
Georgia Tech
Not AAU but on the lower fringe of having AAU status:
Miami
Virginia Tech
NC State
Florida State
So the SEC could end up with as many as 9 AAU members and 7 schools that do enough research that they could potentially work their way into the AAU. Granted, I don’t know if they’d take Georgia Tech or NC State, and UNC, Duke, and Virginia may well end up in the Big Ten. But the potential is there at least for the SEC to step up and become a pretty respectable conference academically after being basically bottom of the barrel just 10 years ago.
LikeLike
I turned super bullish on USC/UCLA (and Washington/Oregon) joining the Big Ten a few years ago.
I think Stanford is guaranteed to eventually join, the reason being that I think ND will eventually join the Big Ten as well.
ND will want Stanford/USC as guaranteed games annually (duh), so it’s pretty obvious for Stanford to also come.
Only question is whether Cal gets left out…
LikeLike
Exactly. It’s going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Notre Dame. None of the rest carry their weight. They can play Cal in an out of conference game.
LikeLike
I think Stanford is guaranteed to eventually join, the reason being that I think ND will eventually join the Big Ten as well.
They are a very large academic “fig leaf” so that the Big Ten can say this isn’t all about money.
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
If I were one of the better schools in the Big 12 I’d be immediately calling the other top 4/5 schools and the top 4/5 schools left in the PAC 12 to start a new conference. GoRs end roughly the same time and I’d try to lock in as many of the better PAC-12-2 teams as I could while there’s still uncertainty around getting an invite from the B1G.
It’s not like they’ll get huge money, but if you have a good 10 teams from both leagues it’s got to be more per school than what they’ll currently get with a Big 12 raided PAC12 or vice versa.
LikeLike
I post this reluctantly since I’ve always felt this guy was making stuff up. However, he’s been talking about USC/UCLA to the Big Ten for most of the summer so he might know something. He’ll post some (imo) racist/sexist stuff from time to time so beware. I don’t follow him for those reasons but he keeps popping up on my radar. Anyway, here’s his thread on Notre Dame:
https://twitter.com/Genetics56/status/1542621925171683329
Seems awful fast for Notre Dame to get 175 Million together to leave the ACC, but who knows anymore.
LikeLike
Most of what he says just sounds like a fever dream.
I mean a lot of us have been speculating USC/UCLA to the Big Ten for years now, and it seemed like the next obvious domino.
LikeLike
Most of what he says just sounds like a fever dream.
I agree, he’s been right on enough that I can’t tell if he just got lucky or actually does know someone.
LikeLike
Greg Flugaur (@ flugempire) posted in late March about USC to the B10. Inside info (as he always claims), or a blind squirrel finding a nut? We’ll never know for sure.
LikeLike
“for most of the summer”
You mean, for a week? The first day of summer was June 21.
LikeLike
Mandel’s most recent Kings/Barons list by future conference alignment.
SEC (9)
Emperor – Alabama; Kings – Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma & Texas; Barons – Auburn, Florida, Tennessee & Texas A&M.
B1G (8)
Kings – Michigan, Ohio State & USC; Barons – Iowa, Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State & Wisconsin.
Kings and Barons not affiliated with either the B1G or SEC (5)
Kings – Clemson (ACC) & Notre Dame (Ind); Barons – Florida State & Miami (ACC), and Oregon (P-12)
LikeLike
This seems like an extreme step to take just to get rid of divisions. Or did the B10W just get 2 new members with PU moving to the B10E?
Divisions? (7 + 2/8)
W = USC, UCLA, NE, IA, WI, MN, NW, IL
E = RU, UMD, PSU, OSU, MI, MSU, IN, PU
I think not.
Pods?
W = USC, UCLA, NE, IA
N = WI, MN, NW, IL
E = RU, UMD, PSU, OSU
S = MI, MSU, IN, PU
I think not.
3 locked rivals?
USC – UCLA, OSU/MI, PSU/NE
UCLA – USC, OSU/MI, PSU/NE
NE – IA, MN, USC/UCLA
IA – NE, MN , WI
MN – NE, IA, WI
WI – IA, MN, NW
NW – IL, WI, RU
IL – NW, PU, IN
PU – IL, IN, UMD
IN – PU, IL, MSU
OSU – MI, USC/UCLA, PSU
MI – OSU, MSU, USC/UCLA
MSU – MI, RU/UMD, IN
PSU – RU/UMD, OSU, USC/UCLA
RU – PSU/MSU, UMD, NW
UMD – PSU/MSU, RU, PU
Probably something like that.
LikeLike
Big Ten is driving all this. They got all the media for their new League. Sec is going to behind in everything. NBC,Cbs,Fox,Espn. will fill all time slots only showing their teams. Sec only has espn. their screwed. B10 been working on this for 2+ yrs. It’s been on the down low. but inside info has been leaking out. Could be 30-40 teams in new League. Sec?
LikeLike
So what does this mean for the TV deal? Obviously even more $$$, but beyond that. It’s more big brand games with national appeal, making the Fox/CBS/NBC(or ESPN) plan more viable. You have a truly coast-to-coast conference. Game windows at 12, 3:30, 7 and sometimes 10 ET.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/SBJ-Unpacks/2022/06/30.aspx
SBJ is reporting that Apple has asked to get back into talks with the B10 since the addition of USC and UCLA. Did they plant a seed that lead to this move?
LikeLike
I always thought USC and UCLA to B1G was inevitable but contract after this one when neither could no longer stomach the financial gap.
I’ve also said 20 will be the new 12. Just works well in a non-division format yet not so huge brand dilution hits.
Seems unlikely B1G would say no to Cal and Stanford. Academic prestige in spades and in the sixth largest TV market.
Washington is in the next biggest TV market after Phoenix. Arizona State isn’t the B1G dream school in academics but it’s a B1G hotbed and 11th largest TV market. Arizona is attractive as well.
Oregon has to be in the discussion with a great national brand and Nike love.
Colorado interesting in academics and the Denver market.
I think we can safely say Washington State and Oregon State aren’t going B1G. Utah is a nice academic fit but 30th tv market and no strong national brand probably scratches them.
That leaves seven schools with some chance of following USC and UCLA and probably three on the wrong side of the choices made by B1G
Don’t you know there is muttering around Big XII asking why the heck B1G didn’t do this a year ago before they pulled the trigger on BYU UCF Houston and Cincinnati?
LikeLike
You’re dead on. Except for the Arizona State love. You’re right that ASU is in Phoenix…but Tucson is just down the road and it has equal sports (better?) and is an AAU school, which matters to the Big Ten.
You make a great point about Utah. I could see Kansas coming ahead of Utah. Nebraska and Colorado are its old Big Eight foes. Utah was a MWC team for most of its history.
Did you hear that Kansas just took off its wedding ring and put its hand on the Big Ten’s knee (as it said it would be willing to be football independent and bball in Big East rather than be in the B12)?
LikeLike
OMG!
LikeLike
Is the B10 now the “Conference of Champions”? Stanford is #1 in titles, but UCLA and USC are #2 and 3. Those are the only schools over 100 titles, while #4 UT has 54.
Top 25 B10 schools:
5. PSU
12. MI
16. UMD
17. WI and OSU
23. IA
24. IN
LikeLike
Yes, I’d like to once again congratulate Stanford on piling up all those championships in Olympic sports that nobody else competes in, like bottlecap juggling, Dungeons and Dragons, and the tire relay.
LikeLike
And what about the B10’s Rose Bowl record now? We get to claim all the USC wins, right?
Will NW miss not being the only private school in the B10?
The B10 will have more women’s water polo teams than the P12 after this.
LikeLike
Go Bucks
LikeLike
Seems very likely now that the Big Ten will add
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Notre Dame
Washington
Oregon
To get to 20
They can then go to 24 with the best they can get from the rest of the Pac 12 and ACC.
The SEC will probably expand too and their top targets will probably be
UNC
Duke
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
The Big Ten will probably try to go in and get some of those schools the SEC wants. It will be interesting to see who wins out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UNC, Virginia, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington and Oregon.
LikeLike
And go to 22?
If that happens I think the SEC would respond by adding
Clemson
Florida State
Miami
Virginia Tech
NC State
And maybe
Duke
Georgia Tech
Louisville
LikeLike
The B10 hasn’t looked to expand that fast before. Today is the deadline for P12 schools to announce they are leaving in 2024 and avoid a penalty, so any others might have to wait a year (or pay up).
I think the B10 is probably pausing to see if ND expresses any interest, and what schools they would want added (Stanford?). If you can get UCLA, USC, ND and Stanford, do they still want UW and UO? Might they look to CU and UA instead?
LikeLike
Did UW, Oregon, & Stanford announce they were leaving the P10 Thursday to avoid the exit penalty once they find a new home?
LikeLike
I wonder if there’s any chance the ACC throws up its hands and decides to offer schools a chance to buy their way out and give the conference a chance to move forward without the dread that will hang over their heads every year until the Grant of Rights ends. This would also give the remaining schools a chance to try and grab some Big 12 schools…and maybe even follow the Big Ten’s example and add some Pac 12 schools to form a coast-to-coast conference. (8 leftover ACC schools, 8 leftover Big 12 schools, and 8 leftover Pac 12 schools in 24 team national ‘conference’?)
The grant of rights ends in 2036. They can say any school can leave in 2024 in exchange for,$10 million every year until 2036 to the remaining members, provided they make the announcement in the next 6 months. Ignoring Notre Dame for the moment, if 6 schools accept, then the 8 remaining schools would divide $60 million a year between them: $7.5 million a year for each school. (The ACC distributed $36.1 million per school last year).
Some fan bases will likely be disappointed when they find out they’re not actually wanted (because the barrier to entry to the Big Ten and SEC is higher than ever)…those that remain would have to accept that this is their new place in life and would be more motivated to making the new ACC work instead of counting down until 2036.
LikeLike
I’ve thought more about this. If the ACC wants to put all the speculation behind it (and perhaps have some kind of Pac merger like Frank suggested), the schools can get together and collectively buy out their Grant of Rights from each other.
Assuming they reach a separate agreement with ND (splitting what they get from them), the other 14 schools would each put into a pot the value of their grant of rights each year and then receive 1/14 of the total pot back. This would last until the GOR expiration date.
How would you determine the value each school’s rights? By what conference they ended up in.
My example (feel free to come up with your own):
Amount in millions each team puts in pot per year
$35 – teams getting full SEC or Big Ten membership
$25 – teams getting full Pac or Big 12 membership
$20 – teams staying in ACC or getting non-football SEC/BT/Pac/B12 membership
$10 – teams getting Big East membership
$0 – teams that have to join Sunbelt, etc.
Scenarios with the above values (fractions rounded down):
2 teams to SEC/Big Ten, 12 stay ($22.14m in pot/year for each team):
teams leaving each pay net $12.86 mill/year…other teams each get net $2.14 mill/year
—-
6 teams to SEC/Big Ten, 8 stay ($26.42m in pot/year for each team):
teams leaving each pay net $8.58 mill/year…remaining teams each get net $6.42 mill/year
—-
4 teams to SEC/Big Ten, 6 to Big 12/Pac, 4 teams join AAC! ($20.71m in pot/year for each team):
teams moving to SEC/Big Ten each pay net $14.29 mill/year; teams moving to Big 12/Pac each pay net $4.29 mill year; teams moving to AAC each get net $20.71 mill/year (and are very lucky the conference wasn’t dissolved before the payouts were negotiated!)
—-
4 teams to SEC/Big Ten, 10 to Big 12/Pac ($27.85m in pot/year for each team):
teams moving to SEC/Big Ten each pay net $7.15 mill/year; teams going to Big 12/Pac each get net $2.85 mill/year
If the conference isn’t dissolved, there might also be a one-time exit fee for departing schools.
LikeLike
I wrote this August 11, 2021:
“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.”
I’ve been completely on board with USC to the Big Ten since Texas, OU announced last year.
Everything made sense: money, exposure in the East half of the country on a much bigger stage.
Everything pointed to USC needing a much bigger stage and the Pac-12 completely being an afterthought nationally and in its media deal fed into that.
I think now Big Ten puts a hard press on ND to join.
If ND says yes, I think they come with Stanford, UW, Oregon. Maybe Cal/Arizona but I don’t think those 2 are in line.
This is cutthroat decision making now.
I expect Washington and Oregon have good odds of getting into the Big Ten. Not sure about anybody else except Stanford with ND if ND says yes.
LikeLike
I agree with one change — ND won’t join unless and until Stanford does.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/usc-and-ucla-to-big-ten-pac-12-faces-tough-questions-uncertain-future-amid-conference-realignment-raid/
For what it’s worth, at least 1 industry insider thinks the new B12 will be more attractive than the new P10.
LikeLike
“Remember last year when the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 formed “The Alliance” after the SEC added Oklahoma and Texas?”
Big 12, eh? Stellar work from Barrett Sallee. Oxford comma fail, too.
LikeLike
Yes, I noticed that as well. The stories are published so fast nobody bothers with editing anymore.
LikeLike
The B1G knew the impact the USC/UCLA move would make on the P12. I am sure the B1G developed the potential TV and overall value of each of the remaining 10 members since they could assume that once USC fell all of the others would want to follow. The fact that the B1G did not make any more invites indicates that even Oregon and Washington are not that additive and may even dilute the B1G payout per team. Unlike 2010, the TX/OK SEC move showed that now the B1G/SEC can pick up kings without taking their entire entourage. UCLA was the only other school the B1G had to take to get USC.
In the second article from the Brian’s link above, D.Dodd brings up the possibility of making room for the likes of Oregon and Washington by ejecting low performing schools (Indiana and Purdue mentioned). The flaw in this logic (besides no conference is yet at the point of ejecting members like the Big East did to Temple) is that the payout to the kings and barons probably increases more by just ejecting the low performing members without replacement. This is what the B12 observed when they went to 10 members.
LikeLike
I remember some speculation that the Big Ten would expel Penn State during the Sandusky scandal and supposedly it takes only a 60% vote to expel. That’s not very high if it’s true. You can’t rule it out.
LikeLike
After UT/OU joining the SEC, there will really on two “available” kings that made any sense for the Big Ten – USC and Notre Dame. Notre Dame wasn’t going to happen, so the obvious play was USC with a solid partner if the Big Ten were to expand. And, obviously, this move makes the opportunity to get the other king – Notre Dame – down the line that much more likely given their history with the Trojans and desire to play a more national schedule.
Other shoes will drop, but ultimately the next big play is to get Notre Dame. That’s the remaining move that jumps the needle. Sure they might do something like Oregon/Washington and I think that would be acceptable but Stanford/Notre Dame has got to be what the conference is zeroed in on as a goal.
LikeLike
Sports Illustrated (Dellenger) says that multiple Pac teams have contacted the Big, and the Big is reviewing options. So who’s next from the Pac to the Big?
LikeLike
I feel pretty confident it’s a very short list now of just Washington and Oregon as a pair and then Stanford as the +1 to Notre Dame.
I don’t see how anybody else can justify expansion at this point.
ND gets first choice. If they don’t join, I still think we add Washington, Oregon.
If ND joins, then I think we announce all 3 together of Washington, Oregon, Stanford.
Still a lot to play out next few weeks.
LikeLike
What is the expected time range it would take for the Domers to say no to the B10 again? Last time it took months it seemed.
LikeLike
You have to assume UW and UO applied. Cal and Stanford presumably want to be with USC and UCLA. Likely all the other AAU schools did (UU, CU, UA), too. But I’d guess some outside the P12 did as well (KU, maybe others), just in case.
Most likely to me:
1. Stay at 16 for now (waiting on ND)
2. Add UW and UO (then wait on ND)
3. Add UW and CU (then wait on ND)
4. Add UW and Stanford (then wait on ND)
5. Add ND and Stanford
6. Add ND, UW, UO and Stanford
7. Add ND + other 3 (or more) from P12
LikeLike
Big Ten presidents won’t leave Cal in the cold. Why do so few here understand that?
LikeLike
Because history shows the B10 to be incremental expanders, and always with an eye towards getting ND. They can always add Cal later, they don’t need to chase them now unless ND requests it. Neither Stanford nor Cal have large fan bases or “bring” the SF market, so Stanford’s rivalry with ND gives them the edge. The larger brands of UO and UW put them higher on my list, too.
Remember, the question was “So who’s next from the Pac to the Big?” and not “So who would ever come from the P12 to the B1G?”
LikeLike
Why not?
LikeLike
What do you base you belief the BIG10 will accept Cal? Research grants, delivering a media market, it’s AD budget deficit, poor quality sports teams, or what?
LikeLike
Stanford, Cal and Washington make the most sense if Notre Dame joins. If ND refuses, then Washington, Stanford, Cal and Oregon.
LikeLike
The rest of this Pac-12 story will likely take a couple more weeks and months to unfold.
We all know (and Big Ten execs know) the numbers work for Notre Dame + 1 (Stanford most likely to preserve ND-USC and ND-Stanford game slots) no matter what.
Most likely the Big Ten is running the numbers on Washington/Oregon and figuring out what they would look like in the conference.
We all know (and they know) the numbers work for Notre Dame + 1 (Stanford most likely) no matter what so don’t need to look at finances there.
I’m not sure the numbers work for anybody else beyond Washington/Oregon, as much as we like to discuss Cal, Arizona, Colorado (which are all good schools in good locations, but not sure any of them is anywhere close to justifying $80-100 million revenue a year).
I think we’re basically just down to Washington/Oregon as a pair and Stanford with ND being the remaining options from the Pac-12. Any kind of larger group of Pac-12 schools looks unlikely right now barring something changing.
LikeLike
Yep. In the short term for the Big Ten – i.e. before they sign a new media deal – I think one one of the following moves are really the only things on the table:
1. No other moves, stay at 16
2. Washington/Oregon join
3. Stanford/Notre Dame join
4. all four of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Notre Dame join
I really don’t think anything else is remotely likely.
LikeLike
Agree with you completely. Those 4 scenarios are the only scenarios on the table for the next few months. That’s where the focus will be for decision makers.
LikeLike
It’s 4, and sooner rather than later. LAY YOUR BETS: Washington/Oregon within 48 hrs. Stanford and Notre Dame within a week.
LikeLike
How did you determine 48 hours & 7 days for the next 4 additions? Domers will always drag it out since they have to look in the mirror before any decision to admire their fleeting beauty. Dub-Ducks seems like a natural fit so why would it take even 48 hours, either they are an immediate take nor not. Something must be more important or it would have been done by now.
LikeLike
z33k,
Reporters are saying that further expansion is on hold, at least for now. That makes sense to me.
The B10 wants to give ND time to think about the new B10 TV numbers that Fox/CBS/NBC will offer with this addition (and how much more ND would add).
I’m willing to bet the B10 already has the financial numbers for every other viable P5 school out there. Yes, ND + anyone works and I agree Stanford seems the most likely partner (for several reasons – ND and USC rivalries, SF market), though you don’t need even numbers in a non-division world.
If any others come from the P12, UW and UO seem like the best options. They are solid brands, each add a state and a media market, they are rivals, and USC/UCLA fans will like playing them.
I also agree the rest can’t match that value. There are a lot of B10 alumni in AZ, but the brand of UA is too small and USC and UCLA don’t care that much about playing them in football. CU is a good school and a rival for NE, but again can’t bring enough value to match and doesn’t help USC and UCLA feel at home.
On the bright side, the southwestern B12 schools (and Cal) could merge with the B12 pretty easily. UA, ASU, UU and CU would add some heft and major markets. The schools at biggest risk are OrSU and WSU – the MWC may be their only option if things go poorly.
LikeLike
Agreed, I think they’re letting ND think it over first.
ND will get a few weeks to think over the $80-100 million a year revenue numbers that are being tossed around.
And then Washington, Oregon will probably be talked to in some capacity. I think both of them make sense regardless of ND’s decision.
But a lot easier to add ND then Washington/Oregon/Stanford as a trio. Makes travel considerations a lot easier and you add all the west coast markets (Washington, Oregon, SF).
If ND says no, I think it’s still reasonable for the Big Ten to add Washington/Oregon before they finalize the TV deals.
LikeLike
It feels like if UW/UO is going to happen, it has to happen almost immediately or wait for ND. I’m sure USC and UCLA kept this quiet, but UO and UW applied to get in today and the B10 should already know their answer if the numbers clearly favored them.
I think going to 18 is daunting for the B10, and the B10 won’t readily do it without ND. They probably would have if USC and UCLA demanded it, but they didn’t. Adding UW/UO wouldn’t add money per school, but it wouldn’t really hurt either. But it does further dilute the rivalries of the old B10 members. At some point, further expansion just isn’t worth it.
LikeLike
I feel like 18 can’t be daunting because we know they’d go to 18 for ND.
And things changed now with the division setup beyond tossed aside and the SEC breaking the glass on 16.
With the concept of protected rivalries, it’s very easy to add Oregon/Washington because the money will be there, quality inventory will be there, markets will be there, and you create a stable setup for the conference with 3 protected rivalries and then 6 games outside.
LikeLike
Sure they’d do it for ND. But would they for anyone else? That’s why I say it’s daunting. Going to 18 means being willing to go to 20 to get ND. I don’t know that they’re ready for that yet.
LikeLike
When is the realistic time range to ink the TV deals? Is the deadline say Dec 31? Multiple media outlets said the B10 TV deal was expected by Memorial Day.
LikeLike
Further expansion is on hold right now because in all likelihood no one else of note had inquired about membership before today.
I may be the most wrong person to ever post a comment on a Frank blog post but I don’t share the apparent consensus feeling that B1G goes Oregon/Washington if they add only two more (presuming ND’s deal makes them implausible short-term).
It’s obviously not just markets or AAC would have had a fatter deal and Nebraska, Arkansas, South Carolina would have been non-starters. Viewers matter. People willing to sign up to a streaming package matters.
I think Stanford just does more for B1G than any of the 10 left in PAC with the exception of Oregon.
Stanford academically would be highly regarded academically in any Division I conference. Even the Ivies would look at them positively.
They’ve got a good brand in addition to being in the nation’s sixth biggest TV market. Their alums are all up and down the chain of command of the streaming services and tech companies.
Oregon’s weirdness has created a following and while not the TV market that Phoenix or Seattle offers, they are B1G compatible in academics and offer eyeballs across the country. All that in addition to Nike love.
LikeLike
Arkstfan,
Stanford is a great school, but they have very little brand value in revenue sports. They had a few good years in football, but that is fading. The don’t have hard core fans and they don’t have a huge alumni base (rich, yes, but not huge). And their alumni are spread out internationally. Even in the prior round of expansion, getting BTN into the SF market based on adding Stanford would’ve been a tough sell. I don’t see it helping much at all now.
Stanford’s best shot is as a condition of adding ND, in my opinion.
LikeLike
10 years of 5-7 and Oregon is Indiana without good basketball.
Oregon has good value now as they’ve been one of the most successful schools over the last dozen years not named Ohio St., Clemson or in the SEC. The Big 10 will also consider long term value. They will be stuck with their new additions. Oregon isn’t as sure a bet for #17 to #20 as many of you seem to think. Washington has a much better sustainable value. The Bay Area is a big attraction even if Stanford and Cal individually aren’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As long as Phil Knight and Nike are around, Oregon will find a way to be relevant.
LikeLike
bullet,
I agree UO’s value is iffy. They may lose AAU status, Phil Knight’s heirs might not support UO the way he has, everyone has been doing different uniforms lately, and they no longer have a unique offense. But they are still a UW rival and familiar foe for USC and UCLA while also bringing the Portland market. Nothing is for sure in expansion until the paper is signed.
LikeLike
The 4 California schools and UW left behind the Oregon schools and Washington St. in 1959, along with Idaho. It wasn’t until 1964 that the first 3 rejoined the others. If Oregon is included, it will be because of value. They don’t have as strong a ties to the other schools as UW.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Do you do this intentionally? Repeating it won’t change the Pac precursor’s history, only distort it. The “other” schools (plus Stanford) dissolved the conference over pay for play in the 50’s. Stanford joined the 4 others in forming a conference for regional scheduling and competition. The rest were invited back in short order with stricter rule oversight, except for Idaho, and Montana (who had immediately upon leaving become a founding member of a different conference).
Independence was way more common at that time.
Not that history, rivalry, or trust have a place anymore in the quest for ever more dollars.
Iowa, Indiana, Perdue, NW, ?U maybe should be wary. If the conference will not just countenance but participate in this attack on its longest term and strongest ally, can it not be reasonable to assume the last barrier (self amputation) may be contemplated once all the cherrys have been picked?
LikeLike
Only issue Oregon has is the AAU issue (like Nebraska).
They are probably ranked in the bottom 6-8 of the AAU so eventually they may be out… but that’s an argument for adding them now.
But for the sports aspect and marketability/national brand, they’re fine.
I don’t agree with the argument that Oregon could fall off; sure they could but they’ve built such a strong brand as being tied with Nike that it’s long-term sustainable.
LikeLike
Zeek: “Only issue Oregon has is the AAU issue (like Nebraska).”
Another issue with Oregon is a weak TV market. Portland’s Nielsen DMA ranking is # 25. By contrast, Seattle is # 14 and is actually stronger than that because it also captures Canada’s # 3 TV market, Vancouver. San Francisco is # 6 and Denver is # 16
https://www.lyonspr.com/latest-nielsen-dma-rankings/
LikeLike
Oregon’s national brand is strong enough that they generate good ratings in matchups to outweigh their local market.
Probably as strong as Wisconsin or depressed Nebraska’s brand.
LikeLike
I actually agree that Oregon is a bit questionable in terms of future value, though I think joining the stability of the Big Ten and exposure to larger media markets would help their viability. But to me that’s more of a “is Oregon worth it to the Big Ten?” question not is Oregon a better option than other Pac-12 schools. I think Oregon along with Washington is clearly the best available choices to the Big Ten or any other conference from the PAC (including the Bay Area schools) which reflects really how unremarkable the options are once you move past USC and helps explain why losing the LA school has tossed the entire conference into chaos.
If Oregon isn’t a take, then it’s likely no Pac-12 schools are coming.
As an aside, I think that future prospects is one of reasons I’m not very bullish on Clemson. They are great now, but it isn’t tough to see them because more average and have far less value, especially if they were playing a more vigorous schedule in the SEC than in the ACC. If I were Clemson leadership, I’d try to get into the SEC sooner rather than while the school’s value is at the peak.
LikeLike
I think in the old paradigm, the question “does School A add $80 million in value by themselves” made sense.
In the new paradigm, things are consolidating very quickly. With UCLA and USC gone, the Pac-12 went from 3rd or 4th best conference to the 5th best conference immediately. And they CANNOT backfill. It’s about loading up your arsenal now. The “Power 2” talk is gaining steam…and the Pac-12 schools increase the Big Ten’s profile and footprint. AAU schools galore…major Western cities. The SEC is the little backwoods conference that thumps everybody at football…the Big Ten is an American collegiate conference that still looks like a college conference with their academic rep.
I think the Big Ten might have its eye on being the pioneer of college athletics. If they pull off 24 teams with ND, Stanford, Cal, UW, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, and Kansas…they’d stretch from coast to coast and be a presence in 14 of the 22 most populous states, with only two schools (ND and Nebraska) not in the AAU of the 24.
LikeLike
Running the numbers also implies that they inquire what the networks are willing to pay for adding those schools and the potential matchups they bring with current big10 teams. If the networks don’t value the adds as much as the big10 does, then the big10 will not just add schools if it means diluting the share for the members.
That said, with this move of USC/UCLA, and potentially ND plus another, IMHO ESPN is again looking to be a major part of the new “deal”, with ND leaving the ACC arrangement, the ACC Network and contract to 2036 is looking worse and worse to ESPN, given their huge startup investment.
LikeLike
From SI:
“USC was the impetus behind the shift in conferences, according to Ryan Kartje of the Los Angeles Times…. The two schools approached the Big Ten expressing their intent to leave the Pac-12, asking if the conference wanted to take them in or not.”
What was their likely Plan B?
LikeLike
I don’t think there was a plan B.
They expected to get into the Big Ten, and the Big Ten would not turn down USC and UCLA.
Alternative I guess would be to tell the Pac-12 to give them much larger revenue shares in exchange for signing a new GOR.
LikeLike
Plan B: Stew quietly
Plan C: Ask the P12 for unequal payouts
Plan D: Go independent
Plan E: Join the B12
Plan F: Join the MWC and get unequal payouts
LikeLike
The incompetence of the PAC 12 over the past dozen years is just mind boggling. Obviously a lot can be laid at the feet of Larry Scott and his wildly over optimistic revenue projections of the PAC 12 Networks and refusal to bring in a strategic partner (not mention his decision to send costs through the ceiling by basing the network in Bay area and launching 7 different networks instead of 1), but the schools themselves pulled the rug out from under him (not to mention poisoned relations with the Big Ten) when they killed the Big Ten-PAC Scheduling Alliance at the last possible second for no good reason. It was an absolutely asinine decision at the time that just somehow manages to look stupider every day that goes past.
But at least the Oklahoma schools will always be there for the PAC to grab in case they need them.
Oh wait…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree on that, there’s probably an alternate universe where the 12 team Big Ten and Pac-12 have a Big Ten-Pac-12 annual football challenge and neither goes to 9 games.
May not have added Maryland/Rutgers if that panned out…
But who really knows at any rate, it’s impossible to fully spin out the future. Either way Big Ten and Pac-12 would have been much closer with that scheduling agreement in place.
LikeLike
I agree, this failure is more at Larry Scott’s feet than anyone else’s.
I am not sure consummation of the Big Ten–PAC scheduling alliance would have changed this outcome. Sure, everyone was salivating over the likes of USC–Ohio State as an occasional regular-season game. But many of the potential B1G–P12 matchups don’t move the needle to a great extent, relative to the games they can schedule anyway without a formal alliance. The Pac-12 would still be trailing badly in the money game, which is the reason USC/UCLA are moving.
LikeLike
On another note, in addition to being the second biggest get in modern expansion history, this has to be by far the best counter move any conference has ever made. I remember a number of us speculating about something like this after the SEC announced it was adding OU and UT, but I don’t know how realistic anyone really thought it was.
LikeLike
Sorry for the triple post, but the move is now official
https://bigten.org/news/2022/6/30/general-big-ten-conference-statement.aspx
USC’s and UCLA’s applications were unanimously approved by the Big Ten and they will join the conference on August 2, 2024 in time for the 2024-2025 season.
LikeLike
Big12 now has some pretty attractive schools to take them to 20.
LikeLike
I admit this came as a complete surprise to me in terms of the announcement coming so soon. I wasn’t expecting anything further at the P5 level until 2024 or 2025.
As more of an FCS follower myself, I am now wondering what the comino effect of this seismic a move will be.
LikeLike
Well, that would take the Big Ten to base sixteen. If they wanted to push to base twenty with two divisions of ten, which would also make Big 10 even better to a math nut, then you’re probably looking at adding states. So Colorado / Utah, Oregon, Arizona State, and Washington would be my guess to take it to 20.
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
The end point for the B1G is 24 teams. To maintain long-standing relationships, it will add Oregon, Washington, California, and Stanford. The last two tie up the San Francisco market.
Those additions bring you to 20. Notre Dame is going to be brought, whatever the cost. The best candidates for the remaining three seats are Colorado and Kansas. I bet Missouri would be interested, as would Boston College and Miami.
That package may be worth $3 billion per year in TV fees, paraphernalia, and endorsements.
LikeLike
It’s very hard to see many additions if USC/UCLA were willing to come alone.
Giving them Washington/Oregon is sensible because they’re high value in terms of national tv value and have decent markets. Also gives Big Ten claim to control the entire West coast markets.
LikeLike
Several of the teams you mentioned bring almost no value in football, the sport that drives most of the revenue. Why would the Big Ten want Kansas or Boston College? They would only dilute the brand. The Big Ten already said no to Missouri. Cal and Stanford do not tie up the San Francisco market despite being physically located there.
Most of the Pac-12 markets are not passionate about football the way the Big Ten markets are. When I grew up in Michigan, just about everyone knew whether U-M and MSU won or lost on a given Saturday. You couldn’t miss it, even if you wanted to. That kind of passion simply does not exist in San Francisco for Cal and Stanford football.
LikeLike
You’re assuming ACC members with AAU status (UVa, UNC, Duke) can’t join ND.
LikeLike
Like a lot of you, I didn’t see this coming. Kudos to the Big Ten, USC, and UCLA who — unlike the SEC, Texas, and Oklahoma — kept this totally quiet until they were on the brink of announcing it.
Notwithstanding the money, I think it’s inconceivable that USC/UCLA make this move without believing that the B1G will eventually add more western schools. Even for football, their travel schedule will be unpleasant, assuming no further adds. For the other sports it will be awful. But what do I know?
I do not believe this will affect Notre Dame at all. Before they half-joined the ACC, Notre Dame had practically annual games with 3 Big Ten teams: Purdue, Michigan, and Michigan State. They never thought that because 3 games on their schedule were in the Big Ten, they should be in it as well.
What could affect the Irish is the money. Even today, they could very likely have made more money in the Big Ten and chose not to, simply because to them football independence is part of their identity. The only question is whether at some point the money gap becomes so large that they cannot resist it.
I do expect the Big Ten to act with deliberation, since the decision to add schools cannot be undone (or at least that has been the presumption up to now). The Big Ten knows that the ACC and Pac-12 are now on life support. It is a question of when, not if, they can cherry-pick the best of the rest.
LikeLike
Texas, OU, and the SEC kept it quiet. aTm leaked it to try and sabotage the move.
LikeLike
For aTm to have leaked it, they had to know about it first. As far as I can tell, no other Pac-12 school knew USC and UCLA were negotiating to leave.
LikeLike
Sorry, I didn’t say that very well, since aTm is obviously not in the conference that Texas and Oklahoma are leaving. You suggest that “the SEC kept it quiet,” but at least one of its members did not. That is in contrast to this deal which was completely leak-proof.
LikeLike
I thought this move may mean that the Olympic sports would fall by the wayside while football dominated the room. But USC’s announcement of the move included news that they’re now able to grant a $6k stipend to all athletes.
Maybe USC was struggling with recruiting in other sports and felt they had to make this move to keep up. These football schools are using their riches to take other sports to the next level.
I can’t see a scenario where Stanford doesn’t want to be part of this. I hate the obsession everyone has about trying to get ND in the B1G but that is where all signs are pointing.
LikeLike
I can’t see a scenario where Stanford doesn’t want to be part of this.
The question is not what Stanford wants, but what the Big Ten wants. There is not a school in the Pac-12 that would decline a Big Ten invite. As I noted upthread, I don’t think Notre Dame’s willingness to join is driven by whether Stanford is part of the deal. It is mostly about money.
Stanford did not become a regular on ND’s schedule until 1988.
LikeLike
At this point, Stanford is likely to just be an add on with ND if ND joins in the next couple of years.
LikeLike
Ultimately the question is, who adds $80-100 million per year; we’re at a point where there aren’t that many schools that can justify that kind of valuation to the Big Ten or SEC.
In the Pac-12, Washington and Oregon can probably command that kind of value in terms of TV money (inventory, brand value to match ups, markets, etc.).
I don’t think anybody else can. As much as we talk about Colorado/Arizona/Cal/Stanford/Utah, I don’t think any of them carry $80-100 million in TV weight. Now that USC/UCLA are in the Big Ten, the bar is almost unreasonably high for anybody other than Washington/Oregon to join.
The point is also not to dilute match ups, we want USC, UCLA to play Big Ten teams. This is the reason why the Big Ten chose expansion instead of scheduling alliance; we want them each playing 5-6 games against Big Ten teams.
Stanford is probably the lone exception as a partner with Notre Dame if ND changes their mind about independence anytime soon.
My hunch is that ND will get another opportunity in the next few months (but they are still not likely to give up independence before they’re forced to and their hand isn’t forced yet until/unless the Big Ten and SEC close the playoff window off).
Washington/Oregon are still likely in my mind to join the Big Ten. They make sense as additions in the way that Maryland/Rutgers did with better football brands. They stabilize the situation for USC/UCLA in the way that Maryland/Rutgers did for Penn State.
Give Big Ten clear control of the Western TV markets/football brands; enable the Big Ten to set up a schedule with 3 or 4 locked rivalries (depending on the team) and the USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon teams will have 3 locked rivalries against each other.
Then you get 24 games of USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon playing the current 14 teams annually. That’s a substantial amount of national games (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State will account for 12 of those games).
That justifies the $80-100 million a year tag per team.
18 teams is where we settle for the next couple of years with the door open to ND in case the Big Ten decides to play hardball with the playoff.
LikeLike
Ultimately the question is, who adds $80-100 million per year; we’re at a point where there aren’t that many schools that can justify that kind of valuation to the Big Ten or SEC.
In the Pac-12, Washington and Oregon can probably command that kind of value in terms of TV money (inventory, brand value to match ups, markets, etc.).
I think you are right. Just last year Oregon-Ohio St had 7.73 million viewers while Michigan – Washington had 4.75. My guess is Oregon/Washington vs some combination of Ohio St/Michigan/Michigan St/Penn St/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa will rate solidly better than then top half of the PAC sans USC/UCLA would. Probably solidly enough to justify their inclusion.
Is there enough network effects around Stanford to justify their inclusion? Despite lower ratings, are Stanford grads hard enough to reach for TV to pay a premium? Are there enough executives who are Stanford alums in positions to influence sponsorships? I think you could make a case for Stanford to be included.
LikeLike
Stanford can be justified for a lot of reasons as an add on to ND, but I don’t see the valuation for a Cal/Stanford pair at this point. I think Stanford is sort of in the same holding pattern as Rutgers; they need ND to be their Maryland.
Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but I don’t see the $ working for Stanford outside of a pairing with ND.
Once you get past the $, Stanford makes a lot of sense. Plants a flag in the SF market, more games for those West coast teams to ease travel concerns, further locks down West as Big Ten territory. Brand is probably stronger than much of the remainder of the Pac-12 outside the top 4.
LikeLike
Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but I don’t see the $ working for Stanford outside of a pairing with ND.
Crazy thought. Take a hypothetical four team expansion. Washington, Oregon, Stanford and X (not ND). How much is it worth to the Big Ten presidents to be associated with Stanford both athletically and in the BTAA (formerly CIC)? Lets say the difference in value with Stanford and X is 2 million less a year a school. Do they do it? Will they do it for 5 million a school? I think there might be some leeway with Stanford (and maybe even Cal) that doesn’t exist for any other school.
LikeLike
I have not yet seen any evidence that the Big Ten will make additions that don’t make sense athletically.
LikeLike
@Marc, did Rutgers make sense athletically?
LikeLike
@Andy: The question is not if Rutgers made sense athletically, but if Maryland and Rutgers together did. Rutgers only got an invite because Maryland was available. The Big Ten either needed to turn down Maryland or add the best available 14th school to go with it, which they believed then was Rutgers.
Now, we could argue all day whether the combo Maryland+Rutgers made athletic sense. But I am quite sure the Big Ten thought it did. They were not adding those schools because of the value they’d bring to the CIC.
With Missouri, as you know, they reached the opposite conclusion, i.e., that Missouri plus the next best 14th school (which probably was still Rutgers) could not be justified. I am not here to argue whether they got that one right.
To clarify though, I consider athletic revenue to be an athletic decision, even if the teams that provide the revenue are losing.
LikeLike
Marc,
RU made sense athletically?
LikeLike
Okay, the last sentence clarifies your meaning. I agree RU made financial sense.
LikeLike
At the time, Rutgers definitely did not make sense athletically. It was a financial and strategic move to bring in the market between DC and NYC. A huge part of the country in terms of population, financial and political status.
That was then. No things are a little bit different. Rutgers finished 48th in this years Director’s Cup. That is ahead of Nebraska, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, and Indiana. Also ranked in the 40s were Michigan State, Penn State and Maryland. In other words, being in the B1G has lifted to RU to solid mediocrity in the B1G.
Here are the Director’s Cup standings. https://scarletknights.com/documents/2022/6/30/FinalDIstandings.pdf
LikeLike
To hades with Notre Dame and their oversized ego. All B1G has to do to instruct their teams to quit scheduling the Irish in football. Case closed. Bring on Southern Cal and UCLA!
LikeLike
Bo Schembechler once said, “To hell with Notre Dame,” but university presidents and sports administrators do not feel that way—never have.
LikeLike
Gene Smith on Notre Dame: “I love my alma mater, and I’ve always thought they should be in a conference … I hope they consider it, and I hope it’s the Big Ten.”
Clearly, the focus is on ND right now. But I do believe Washington/Oregon will be next.
I think Big Ten reaches 18 or 20 before this round finishes in the next few months.
LikeLike
As far as the ACC goes, I think we need to temper our thinking on who can join the Big Ten or SEC.
UNC is obvious (with a partner, most likely UVA or Duke for the Big Ten). Both the SEC and Big Ten want UNC. SEC might want Va Tech with UNC to maximize football markets.
Florida State and Clemson can justify themselves off the football brands, though FSU is much more guaranteed to have a landing spot down the road.
And then I’m not sure who else comes close to justifying the $.
I’m not sure Miami brings $80-100 million; it’s big, but it’s not USC being the king of Cali. Florida has 2 bigger schools than Miami in UF and FSU. Va Tech is sort of like Miami. They have more pull on Virginia as a state at this point, but that likely only applies for the SEC but even they might prefer UVa.
Georgia Tech is off the table in my opinion. I don’t see how the Big Ten justifies them as an addition given what we’re seeing with the USC/UCLA expansion. The Big Ten is taking schools that justify their shares. Ga Tech is an afterthought in Atlanta and the Big Ten doesn’t need to fight for scraps of that market.
I can see the argument for UNC/UVA or UNC/Duke or FSU + UNC/UVa/Duke. Or something including ND and FSU and 2-4 others, that might be the only path for Ga Tech. Either way things are going to change fast in the mid-2030s but the paths are much smaller than previously thought.
Endgame is likely a 22-24 team Big Ten if ND and UNC are along for the ride.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UNC is obvious (with a partner, most likely UVA or Duke for the Big Ten)….
They are not “obvious” to me. UNC is a blueblood in basketball, but football is driving these decisions.
I’m not sure Miami brings $80-100 million.
Miami is worth that only when they are great, which they have not been for a long time. The Big Ten will want programs that bring TV dollars all the time, not just when they are winning.
LikeLike
And Miami is not AAU. Nor is FSU or Clemson. SEC will be salivating over them if the ACC breaks up…
LikeLike
ND’s longstanding surfeit of leverage has now fully evaporated to zero. For the long term — even the medium term, thanks to the accelerating force of NIL — maintaining independence is not viable. Neither is joining the ACC — unstable and now an exceedingly distant third-best conference. Neither is joining a best-of-the-rest XII/Pac — same reasons. Neither is joining the SEC — the SEC would take them, of course, but acquiescing to that culture would be anathema to ND.
That leaves one option. And when you have one option, you have no leverage. So all this talk about the Big Ten needing to woo ND now — up to and including paying ND’s way out of its ACC contractual commitments — is exactly backward.
Big Ten can make ND the same offer Michael Corleone made to Senator Geary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gene Smith on Notre Dame: “I love my alma mater, and I’ve always thought they should be in a conference … I hope they consider it, and I hope it’s the Big Ten.”
LikeLike
Pretty big hint the Big Ten isn’t done.
LikeLike
Does anyone actually have a copy of the ACC bylaws and or the tv contract?
LikeLike
Rumors have it that Liverpool and Manchester City are considering a move to the B1G
LikeLiked by 1 person
🤣Only if they bring Arsenal and Chelsea with them…🤣
LikeLike
Let’s assume for a moment that the Big Ten is done poaching for now. Obviously that is a big if, but given that assumption how would you rank the likelihood of the following scenarios
1. PAC poaches the MWC
2. PAC poaches the Big 12
3. Big XII poaches the PAC
4. PAC and Big XII merge
5. The top of the PAC and Big XII form a new conference
LikeLike
I think the PAC will be the one adding schools. My guess is some MWC call ups. Slight possibility of a PAC Big 12 raid.
LikeLike
The pac adding MWC teams, and the big12 adding g5 teams, do not provide the cash flow from networks that allow those conferences to compete on the same scale as the SEC and big10.
LikeLike
The PAC might expand with a few teams like BYU, UNLV, San Diego St, Boise St, AFA but it’s hard to amagine a merge with either the MW or Big XII.
LikeLike
In the short term, #1: The Pac-12 will look at MWC schools, but I don’t know whether any of them make financial sense. The Big XII stayed at 10 schools for several years after finding that no expansion candidates really moved the needle. Schools the Big XII rejected include those the Pac would very likely be looking at today, including Boise State for example. The Pac doesn’t have to expand.
For either the Big XII or Pac-12 to poach the other, there would need to be a clear superiority, and right now that is just not obvious. The Pac-12 has the more storied programs, but not a lot of recent success on the field. There are vast cultural differences between the two leagues that would need to be bridged.
The TV landscape will take time to shake out. The difference between Pac-12 money and Big Ten money made the USC/UCLA decision a no-brainer. The future TV value of the Big XII and Pac-10 remains to be seen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
#3. The B1G adds Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington for a 20-member league, while the Big XII assimilates what’s left of the Pac (UA, ASU, Colorado, OSU, Utah and WSU, thus expanding to 18 once UT and OU leave)) Notre Dame would be part of a B1G expansion to 24 with three AAU ACC members (UVa, UNC, Duke?), while the SEC would absorb VT, NCSU and whrever else it wants.
LikeLike
They’ll be slow to expand because every one of them (sans WSU and OrSt) will be waiting by the mailbox to see if their Big Ten applications were accepted. 🙂
LikeLike
I realize Delany still has an ‘advisory’ role, but considering his east coast obsession, I do wonder if if he wouldn’t have had qualms about going all in on the west. Obviously no one, including Delany, would turn down USC, but if the B1G adds Oregon, Stanford, Washington and ND, it greatly limits ACC options. Especially with ESPN holding all the cards. My guess is they’ll lock up Clemson, UNC, FSU and Duke for the SEC, and allow the ACC and it media deal to collapse. Everyone knows the Super Conference era is upon us. I would love a Florida presence for the B1G but it would probably take ND’s urging to get FSU or Miami in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How to make Notre Dame join the B1G.
Hear me out guys. Notre Dame has stated their great preference to stay independent in football subject to three variables: (1) continued playoff & bowl access, (2) a home for other sports, and (3) not losing too much money to stay competitive. I would add (4) football scheduling games in October & November.
Notre Dame’s home for non-football sports and five game ACC schedule works for them as long as the ACC exists. Check off #2 and #4, for now.
Notre Dame’s Swarbrick and the SEC’s Sankey have had a bromance brewing for the last several years. Under the Swarbrick-Sankey proposed 12 team format, a 10 win Notre Dame would almost assuredly have a spot and a 9 win Irish would make it in many years.
I think its safe to say that the Irish are unlikely to join to SEC. It would make for great TV drama though. The smart kids from the iconic school everybody loves to hate (unless you love them) coming down South every other week to play in front of hostile crowds of 80 to 100k.
Assuming the SEC is not a viable option for the Irish, Sankey has no reason do anything to push the Irish toward the B1G. He and Swarbrick will continue to work together to ensure playoff access for the Irish. Check off #1, for now.
NBC has a great deal with the Irish. They could certainly push the Irish to play only one non-ACC cupcake per year, in addition to Navy and give more cash. But the B1G and the SEC will be making $80 to $100m per year. How much will NBC pay for ND to keep up with the Joneses
The ACC has a Grant of Rights until 2036. Assuming there is not a vote to dissolve or Duke, UVA & UNC lawyers are smarter than everyone else, the ACC stays in a safe place at #3, getting lapped by the B1G and the SEC, but most likely lapping the B-12 and the Pac-?.
The biggest variable is playoff access. Since the next playoff format will not have to be unanimously approved by all current participants, the SEC and the B1G could suggest a playoff format in a take it or leave it fashion to the rest of the college football world. I assume the B1G now likes the format suggested by the CFP subcommittee with more at large teams.
If the rest of the college football world doesn’t agree, by 2036 at the latest, I could see a 4-team B1G playoff and a 4-team SEC playoff with the champions playing each other in the Sugar (even numbered years) and the Rose (odd numbered years) with the runners-up playing in the other bowl. The B1G and the SEC could sign bowl agreements with Cotton, Fiesta, Orange & Peach for #s 3-6, and the Citrus, Las Vegas, LA, Outback, Alamo & Gator for #s 7-12. That locks in the best best bowls for the top half of the two conferences. That shuts Notre Dame out of the SEC/B1G invitationals. Throw in Houston, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis for #s 13-16 just for fun. Note, I’m not an anti-trust lawyer, but what little I know about it, I don’t think this suggestion runs afoul of the law.
Why would the SEC every agree to anything that would push Notre Dame into the arms of the B1G? Answer: the B1G and the SEC agree to a territorial arrangement where they agree not to share any state. The B1G will not consider any ACC team for membership located south of the Potomac River and the SEC will not consider the Irish. (I can’t help but think of Blazing Saddles as I wrote that!)
So the B1G gets their long sought after Midwestern jewel with a national following, and the SEC gets the pick of the ACC litter in the South. If the final number is 20, I would assume the SEC accepts Clemson, Florida State, UNC and UVA or VA Tech, If the number is 24 (I think that’s the ultimate number), then additional invitations go out to the other VA school, Miami, NC State & Duke.
If the number for the B1G is 20, we can assume it adds Washington, Oregon, Stanford & Notre Dame. If the ultimate number is 24, I would think some combination of the Arizona schools (B1G retirement community), Cal, Colorado (bone-throw the NE), Utah (AAU) & BC (another Catholic school for ND) would be in the mix.
Not fighting over the same schools may return some level of collegiality to college sports. It gives each conference a growing section of the country with recruiting hotbeds. The B1G footprint would stretch from coast to coast with top tier academic schools and about 150m in population. The SEC footprint would be more regionalized, contain a mix of schools and have about 125m in population. That’s about as fair as it can be for the two remaining super powers. The other reason for a detante between the SEC and the B1G is twofold: (1) they may have mutual agreements but they will never merge, and (2) one will never defeat the other. Finally, each conference needs to have an adversary.
LikeLike
Washington and Oregon joining the Big Ten isn’t like USC and UCLA coming in. USC & UCLA are archrivals. Oregon and Washington are not. Oregon’s archrival is Oregon St and Washington’s is Wash St.
The TV markets are also less robust. Seattle has a respectable Nielsen rank of 12 but Portland is only 22 and Eugene isn’t in it. Eugene has it’s own market area and it is ranked 121.
I’m not sure UW and OU would want the Big Ten and I question that the Big Ten would want UW and OU.
LikeLike
OSU and WSU regard Oregon and Washington as their biggest rivals, but the reverse is not true. Oregon is Washington’s biggest game and vice-versa. (It is a similar dynamic to how Michigan St. views Michigan as its biggest rival, but Michigan views Ohio St. as its arch enemy).
LikeLike
frug: “OSU and WSU regard Oregon and Washington as their biggest rivals, but the reverse is not true. Oregon is Washington’s biggest game and vice-versa.”
I have a 50-year buddy who is a duck alumnus and he says the polar opposite. The Beavers are their biggest rivals – they call it the Cival War – and he also says that Oregon alumni are totally disgusted with USC and UCLA screwing over the conference.
LikeLike
My dad’s whole family is from Washington and even my Cougar alum grandfather concedes that UDub cares more about Oregon. Different perspectives I suppose.
That said, I do agree that the rest of the PAC community (especially fans of the original PAC 8) are furious with the LA schools. However, I have zero doubt that no matter how upset they are, Oregon and Washington (and the all the other schools for that matter) would take a Big Ten bid right now without a second thought. Or as SBNation’s Oregon blog put it in their headline Good riddance! (also take us with you…)
LikeLike
Answer: the B1G and the SEC agree to a territorial arrangement where they agree not to share any state.
Such an agreement almost certainly runs afoul of anti-trust laws. Even if the two parties wanted such a deal in theory, there are too many people who’d be aware of it, and who might deliberately or inadvertently let the secret out.
BC (another Catholic school for ND) would be in the mix
BC and ND do not have a major rivalry. Their first football game was in 1975, and they did not start playing near-annually until 1992. That’s not enough of a reason for the Big Ten to add the Eagles, a program they would otherwise surely not want.
LikeLike
Until yesterday, there have been territorial arrangements for 100 years in college athletics, hence reasoning for many of the conferences’ names.
LikeLike
Until yesterday, there have been territorial arrangements for 100 years in college athletics, hence reasoning for many of the conferences’ names.
There was no arrangement not to invade each other’s territories. Conferences tended to be geographically coherent because it made sense. Nevertheless, they poached from each other repeatedly where it suited their interests. Otherwise, Maryland would still be in the ACC, Colorado in the Big XII, and so on.
LikeLike
If college presidents are calling the shots, I can’t imagine Cal-Berkeley (arguably America’s premier public university) being left out — especially by the research-oriented Big Ten. It will enter in tandem with Stanford, thus patching up Cal’s ties with sister school UCLA.
LikeLike
@vpo819 – On this front, I agree. I think there has been a lot of underrating of Stanford and Cal over the past 24 hours.
Putting aside the Big Ten’s academic prestige or the fact that they’re located in the SF Bay Area (which is a particularly critical market and innovation engine for the broader US economy beyond the TV market), let’s just remember that these university presidents are human. If you gave any of them truth serum, they would ALL take the university president jobs at Stanford and Cal. As noted, Stanford is the single most difficult school to get into in the country (even more so than Harvard) and Cal is arguably the #1 public university. In essence, the Stanford and Cal jobs for university presidents are the equivalent of the Ohio State and Alabama jobs for football coaches.
Anyone that is arguing that the Big Ten wouldn’t accept Stanford and Cal is really arguing that these Big Ten university presidents would look these schools in the eye and tell them, “You’re not worthy.” Once again, putting aside all of the objective data in realignment, that absolutely makes no sense for the pure rational self-interest of the careers of those university presidents. They would basically be blackballing themselves from *ever* getting two of the positions that would be considered to be the pinnacle of academia.
I’m not saying that Stanford and Cal would just be allowed in on that basis as I believe there are many other reasons why it would make sense for the Big Ten to add them. However, I’m only saying that we can’t ignore the human element here. Stanford and Cal aren’t simply merely good academic schools – they are arguably the #1 private school and #1 public school in the country. This isn’t like rejecting, say, UVA or Duke for financial reasons (which are also great academic schools). Stanford and Cal both have a very specific hold over all of academia that’s very different than nearly everyone other than the tier that includes Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If UCLA, USC (?) or Notre Dame ask for Cal or more likely, Stanford, they are in. These will still be economic decisions. If one school comes and it is not at the request of UCLA, it will be Stanford. Can Berkeley be justified financially if Notre Dame requested Stanford as its plus 1?
If the academics of those two were so vital, why have they not already been invited by the B1G, along with USC and UCLA? From all rumors, for whatever rumors are worth, Washington and Oregon seemed next on the B1G list. How could they be ahead of the Bay area schools if academic prestige is the key?
LikeLike
I don’t believe the rumors that UO is ahead of Cal.
The B10 had to secure USC and UCLA first. The next school on the list is ND.
LikeLike
Also, keep in mind that of the “power” conferences, the B1G blends AAU status (15/16) and public education (Southern Cal joins Northwestern as its only private institutions). No wonder its presidents would be predisposed toward Berkeley.
LikeLike
So based on that criteria I think we all agree that U. Chicago is back on the expansion radar.
LikeLike
I disagree on U of Chicago There are already too many teams in the midwest and USC and U¢LA need a travel partner. The school that has even better academics than Stanford and Cal is in southern california. Let Go Cal Tech Fighting Beavers
LikeLike
I think the Pac stays at 10 if Oregon & Washington don’t leave. Any adds further divide a shrinking pie. No reason for any to jump ship to the B-12 either, unless central time zone kick offs significantly add value.
Going forward, there will be a lot of B-12, Pac-? games on Thursday and Friday nights.
LikeLike
https://mobile.twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status/1542930693205934082
My hunch here is the Big Ten only wants to take from the Pac-12 one more time which is why it’s telling UW and UO to wait.
ND chooses whether to join first.
If ND says no, Big Ten takes UW and UO.
If ND says yes, Big Ten takes UW, UO, Stanford.
Basically next set from Pac-12 will be 2 or 3. All up to ND as to whether Stanford is included.
ND gets a few weeks to decide, then Big Ten moves on.
Big Ten finalizes TV contract with 18 or 20 schools by late August or September.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@zeek – Seems fairly plausible. At 20, four pods of five, lock non pod rivals (OSU/MI, ND/SC, NW/IL, PU/IN) rotate through the others.
USC. UCLA, Stanford, UW, UO
Neb, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisc, NW
IL, MSU, ND, Purdue, MI
Rut, MD, PSU, IN, OSU
If I were commissioner, it would include my Big Ten playoff. 8 conference games plus one game scheduled late like the Covid year. Pod winners play for Big CCG. Everyone else plays a TV scheduled game. East pods host games one year, western pods the next.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t see that happening. No divisions and locked rivals seems more likely to me. Why would they want 3 of OSU’s games locked against RU, UMD, and IN every year, plus the added complication of the extra locked games?
LikeLike
I see it as an attempt to keep some resemblance of playing regional/historical games and limiting travel. The pods could be realigned to limit extra locked games (swap Ohio St and ND, Purdue and Penn St or whatever).
Also, I want my playoffs.
LikeLike
You could still have the top 4 by W% play in your playoffs.
LikeLike
More likely is Illinois instead of NW with Wisconsin, et.al.,
Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana, Purdue
Notre Dame, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern.
No locked rivals.
LikeLike
I think divisions/pods are going away.
It’s just 3 or 4 locked rivals and the rest unlocked.
Big Ten would go to 3 locked rivals and USC/UCLA/UO/UW will be locked with each other.
Remaining 6 games against rest of the Big Ten. Gives us 24 crossover games every year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You will have to go to four locked rivals if ND joins because ND should be locked with USC. In all likelihood they’ll just go with X locked rivals because it simplifies things for the schedule makers. I probably won’t get my playoffs though.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’ll be 3 or 4 protected rivals.
3 for the teams in the East, 4 for the teams on pacific coast or something of that nature.
4 team seeded playoff or something like that.
LikeLike
I haven’t read the ACC’s bylaws or contracts, so I don’t know if this is legally feasible, but…
If enough ACC schools want to leave for the B10 or ACC, can they get around the grant of rights by simply voting to dissolve the conference? It would require some coordination between the SEC and B10 to make sure they take enough schools, which seems unlikely given that they probably would want some of the same schools, but you can’t rule it out.
LikeLike
Oops I meant leave for the B10 or SEC.
LikeLike
I would wager the answer is yes, but I don’t think there is enough teams who are confident they’ll find a new home to make it happen.
LikeLike
That’s always been the assumption, but that would require either 2/3 or 3/4 of the schools to find homes before the dissolution vote and that seems unlikely right now.
LikeLike
Brock Huard just suggested that he’s hearing Washington and Oregon (and he also mentioned Stanford) have been offered half-shares by the Big Ten. That’s hard to give much credence, but that’s what he said.
LikeLike
If there is any credence to this, I suspect it’s a buy-in over time, not permanent second-class status. USC/UCLA, on the other hand, might well have been offered full shares from the get-go—they’re that valuable.
LikeLike
Peter,
Permanent half-shares? That wouldn’t make sense. Half-shares for a while as their buy-in to the BTN (like NE, RU, and UMD did)? That might make sense. A B10 half-share will probably be more than they’d get from the P12.
LikeLike
Washington/Oregon/Stanford will get different buy ins, probably their payouts will ramp up over 7 years while USC/UCLA may get full shares up front.
LikeLike
They may be offered different buy ins, but it all depends on what ND does.
Eventually everyone becomes a full member. If Rutgers is a full member soon then so will they be.
First question, what does ND want. If ND wants to join, we take 3. If they don’t, we take 2.
That has to be decided first.
LikeLike
UO and UW hopes of joining the Big Ten might be on a clock.
LikeLike
Well this might square the circle on “half-shares.”
LikeLike
And probably boost a Cal-Stanford duo.
LikeLike
I used to be bullish on KU to the Big Ten, however, KU has shown zero interest in investing in football since 2010 (IIRC their last facilities upgrade was 2008) and if the KU admin doesn’t care about their football team why should anyone else. At this point, I would put KU’s Big Ten chances behind every PAC12 team except Washington St. and Oregon St. after the USC/UCLA news.
LikeLike
I definitely do not think the B1G is done. Having USC and UCLA on an island does not make a ton of sense. The next move may take time to develop.
LikeLike
I’ve been wrong before, but I believed USC would join the Big Ten this year before the TV deal is signed. I’ve believed that since Texas/OU announced their SEC move.
I still feel that it’s 90% or so likelihood that Washington and Oregon end up in the Big Ten in the next 2-3 months regardless of ND’s decision.
ND is on the clock; they probably have a few weeks to decide. Their decision really only affects Stanford’s situation in my mind. Big Ten can wait until August-September to finalize the TV deal.
Dennis Dodd
@dennisdoddcbs
·
3h
Sources: Oregon and Washington have been told by
@bigten
that it is standing pat for now. Waiting on a decision by Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Rock’s House forum is comprised of the hardest core of Irish students/Alumni. Amazed how many are ready to join the B1G if Stanford is involved. Their ACC/SEC/B1G membership poll went overwhelmingly for B1G. ‘Insiders’ are a dime a dozen, but they claim this guy has proven very credible in the past. https://twitter.com/Jeff_Ermann/status/1542959252314144771?s=09
LikeLike
How USC and UCLA came to join the Big Ten
https://theathletic.com/3393936/2022/07/01/usc-ucla-big-ten-pac-12-explained/
LikeLike
Paywalled, so can you give us a summary of any important new info?
Anyway, after having had a day to digest this, it seems clear that there is only one way for the leftover P5 schools to find the money to compete with the 20+ school B1G and SEC:
Combine together into the LIV 12.
LikeLike
Nearly a year ago, following Texas and Oklahoma’s jump from the Big 12 to the SEC, the Big Ten Conference quietly formed an exploratory committee to look into its own expansion.
…
But the Big Ten was also focused, first and foremost, on its own wellbeing. The league formed its working group and used four primary principles to evaluate potential additions, which ranged from academic and cultural profiles to competitiveness and financial sustainability. The league had conversations with and about a number of schools — but multiple sources said USC and UCLA both reached out to the Big Ten first.
The league’s communication with USC and UCLA grew more serious over the past six to eight weeks, sources said. A trustee at a Big Ten institution said Big Ten schools were asked to look into the feasibility of adding USC and UCLA about two weeks ago.
…
“It really came down to, are you gonna expand, or are you not? And that’s the decision. And if you are, this is it. This is your moment,” a Big Ten source said. “It was do or die: Either you stay at what you are forever and let someone else capitalize, or you go. And that was the prevailing sentiment.”
…
Travel was one of the biggest concerns — there are nearly 2,800 miles between the campuses of Rutgers and UCLA, for example — though most schools eventually came to the conclusion that travel would be a bigger question for USC and UCLA than for current members.
…
“We’re literally nuking the Rose Bowl,” one Big Ten source said. “But what’s the point of the Rose Bowl if the whole point is the Playoff?”
…
Also, Kevin Warren is London this week meeting with potential sponsors and had to conduct the final vote and negotiations over Zoom.
LikeLike
This is the Big Ten’s pitch to ND right now:
You were an independent for 100 years to preserve a national schedule and national identity and more recently as long as you could preserve access to the playoff/BCS/CFP with a home for Olympic sports, it made sense.
But now CFB is dividing up between the SEC and Big Ten and only the Big Ten can offer a national platform for you to play coast to coast.
The eventual Big Ten will be a 22-24 team conference with the current 14 + USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, UNC, UVA (and 2 others, maybe Duke and FSU or Miami or Ga Tech).
That conference is the national college football/sports league. You can have the national platform and not have to worry about access to the highest level of sports.
If we make our own playoff that ends at the Rose Bowl, you’d have access to that. If we partner with the SEC and take most of the spots in the playoff, you’d have access to that.
That’s the only secure path for you to have a national schedule and be a national brand for the next 100 years.
It still may not work for the short term. But I think the Big Ten is positioned to be there after the ACC is raided in the mid 2030s as the national conference for ND.
LikeLike
Don’t be so sure the Big Ten will get any ACC school it wants. The SEC will get some of them too. Some of you were sure the Big Ten would get Texas but Texas chose the SEC and some of these ACC schools will do the same.
LikeLike
Sure, but while schools like FSU, Clemson probably have the same leanings as Texas/Oklahoma, I think schools like UNC, UVA, Duke etc. would be much more receptive to the Big Ten.
Academic heft won’t even be comparable if you add ND, Stanford, Washington, USC, UCLA to the mix.
I get the southern aspects of UNC, but I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t go to the Big Ten with UVA/Duke.
LikeLike
It’s hard to say for sure. I think it could go either way.
LikeLike
One thing I think would make a lot of sense is once the Pac 12 and ACC are raided they’re going to need replacement schools. Send half the Big 12 to the Pac and half to the ACC
ACC
kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Cincinnati
West Virginia
UCF
PAC
BYU
Baylor
TCU
Houston
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
That could work.
LikeLike
With the whole red state/blue state stuff we see…the SEC is predominantly red. The Big Ten is predominantly blue.
UNC is a rare Southern blue state.
Just sayin’…
LikeLike
“Academic heft” without Cal is absurd.
LikeLike
We talk as if the entire ACC will be available at the same time, like contestants on The Bachelor, with the Big Ten and SEC going on dates with every school before deciding whom to marry. So far, realignment has not been like that. Rather, the dominoes tend to fall one or two at a time.
I think one day in the 2030s, a couple of ACC schools will abruptly leave when nobody saw it coming, provoking a crisis for the others. What happens next depends on which pair of schools and where they go. I would put my chips on FSU and Clemson to the SEC.
LikeLike
@z33k: That’s the most believable pitch to Notre Dame that I have seen. That doesn’t mean they will jump, but I think they must be closer now than ever before.
LikeLike
Why not poach the ACC too?
GaTech
UVA
Duke
UNC
Plus 8 Pac-12 schools…
Plus Kansas and ND. 30 schools.
Three protected rivals. Three other regional games. Four national games. 10 game conference schedule.
LikeLike
While the B1G walls are certainly closing in, I still don’t think this forces ND’s hand.
First, the money and prestige has always been better in the B1G. And while it’s about to be much better in the B1G, in the current era, making the playoff is all that matters. They did that twice under Kelly. If they want to continue making it, the path is easier via a 6 game ACC schedule. A 1 loss ND is going to be hard to exclude from a top 4 playoff.
Second, the ACC remains a functional league to house ND’s basketball and non-revenue sports. It will remain functional for the next 14 years given the grant of rights. There has been talk that these rights can be negotiated or settled, but there is a reason OU and Texas aren’t starting SEC play until 2025 when the B12’s GOR expires. If Texas can’t afford to waste money on getting out of its grant of rights, no one in the ACC can. So realistically, if you’re an ACC school we’re talking at least 10 years before you start thinking about a settlement to get out early. Which means the ACC is on relatively solid footing for the next decade.
So for the B1G, that leaves the Pac 12 to plunder, specifically Cal, Stanford, UW and Oregon. UW and Oregon are the obvious football plays, but the fact that USC/UCLA entered into separate and clandestine negotiations rather than as a package of 4-6 Pac 12 schools tells me they made this move with intent of becoming the sole west coast teams in the B1G. If you’re USC and you’re complaint is that we’re stuck in the P12 playing west coast teams on regional stages in late night time slots that’s killing our recruiting and preventing us from competing with Alabama, Georgia, OSU, etc., I would think you make the move to the B1G to maximize the number of games against PSU, OSU, and Michigan. If you come along with 5 other Pac 12 schools, you’re going to be playing the Pac 12 teams most of the time just under a different banner.
That tells me, the B1G is done expanding for now.
One last point, I agree with Frank above regarding Cal/Stanford. Despite lackluster football and indifferent fanbases, they bring a lot to the table in other areas: elite academics, great non revenue sports, SF bay area presence. Those are two schools you make an exception for. Remember, “think like a university president”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Small nitpick: Until recently, the money and prestige of the B10 definitely was not well beyond that of ND. In the near future, the money will be by a ton.
LikeLike
Long time reader, first time poster.
Hot take – Florida and Georgia, not FSU/GT, join the B1G when the SEC grant of rights expires in 2033 (2 years before the ACC GoR expires). UNC/UVA/Duke follow 2 years later.
The reasoning is that outside athletics, Florida and Georgia don’t consider many of their fellow SEC schools to be their peers.
Florida states its peers are: Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Cal Berkeley, A&M, Texas, Virginia, and UNC
https://www.chronicle.com/article/who-does-your-college-think-its-peers-are#id=134130
Georgia states its peers are: Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Purdue, Michigan State, VT, NCSU, Iowa State, Arizona, Missouri, Florida, and Kentucky
https://www.chronicle.com/article/who-does-your-college-think-its-peers-are#id=139959
If we’re in a world where UCLA and USC are going to join the B1G I don’t think anything is off limits.
LikeLike
I recall Barry Alvarez made a comment at an alumni event maybe 15 years ago suggesting that Florida, at one time, reached out to the Big Ten for membership. This was prior to the ascent of the SEC. They turned them down due to distance.
I think Georgia is an ascending academic school that may find an AAU invite down the road. They are in a highly educated state with a big population base. They should have access to top students and financial resources for academics.
LikeLike
The University of Florida and FSU are both moving up significantly in academic rankings. The population of Florida continues to grow rapidly and neither of the two flagship universities are increasing enrollments. There are lots of other Florida universities which the state is not limiting, UCF, USF, Univ North Florida, etc.
This is the same think that happened at UT Austin, which has raised admission standards significantly. I do not know, but I would assume that U Georgia, Athens is doing the same thing.
LikeLike
After Clemson and Florida State join the SEC, is there any chance the B1G could get the University of Florida? My wish list is Notre Dame, Florida, UNC and Virginia.
LikeLike
No SEC school would leave the SEC just as no Big Ten school would leave the Big Ten.
LikeLike
There is no chance of Florida leaving the SEC. As to FSU, Florida sponsored them for SEC membership before they joined the ACC. No current or future members are likely to leave the SEC. 14 of the SEC members have a much better cultural fit with the SEC than any other conference. The exceptions are Missouri and Texas (which really does not fit well in any conference). I doubt the B1G wants to go after Missouri.
Even though Texas A&M was miffed about the Texas invite, they are not stupid. Georgia Tech got upset at the SEC and quit…they have zero chance of ever getting back in. Florida will not quit the SEC if FSU is offered an invite.
I expect both the SEC and B1G will also go after UNC and Virginia. Like Texas, those schools will consider both conferences.
LikeLike
Little8: “I expect both the SEC and B1G will also go after UNC and Virginia.”
Seems like UNC and Virginia wouldn’t be at the top of the Big Ten’s wish list. Neither is a strong football brand and neither captures a strong TV market. I imagine the B1G’s pecking order is:
1. ND + ?
2. Washington and Oregon
3. Two of Clemson/FSU/Miami
4. UNC and UVA
LikeLike
ND has always been the #1 B1G target. Agree that WA/OR are now #2. However, #3 assumes that the B1G will drop their unwritten AAU membership rule for Clemson, FSU, and/or Miami. We know ND is an exception, but I am not sure the others will make the cut with B1G presidents. UNC and UVA are AAU members.
LikeLike
The Big Ten will definitely go after Virginia. Yes, the league is already in Washington D.C., but the Virginia side of that market is arguably more lucrative than the Maryland side. And Virginia is one of the top 3-4 public schools for academics in the country with Michigan, Berkeley, and UCLA. It’s a no brainer. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Big Ten would have preferred Virginia to Maryland in the last round of expansion, but Maryland had more financial problems that made it more willing to leave the ACC.
Duke and UNC would lock up almost the whole state of North Carolina, which is a top 10 state for population, even if the individual markets aren’t that big. Furthermore, it would be a nationwide basketball draw and an academic prestige move. If the SEC and Big Ten offer roughly equal money, it will come down to southern culture vs. academics for those schools when deciding. Keeping in mind that these are college presidents making the decisions (or at least recommendations), I think I know which one they will go with.
The only other maybes in the ACC in order (not counting ND as an ACC school are):
Georgia Tech: Gets you into the big market of Atlanta, excellent academics, used to be good at football years ago.
BC: Smaller school, not a college sports town, but a big town nonetheless, good academics, decent football, and might help draw Notre Dame if you have another Catholic school.
Syracuse: Decent academics, decent football, decent basketball, but doesn’t really get you any more markets.
LikeLike
Clearly there is less than zero chance that Florida leaves the SEC. UF’s biggest rivals are FSU and SEC teams. Due to the hatred between fans, I think that UF and FSU are still each other’s biggest rival, though the annual game against Georgia in Jacksonville is also now a very big deal for UF.
In the event that FSU got an SEC invite (which I agree will eventually happen), the Florida legislature would force UF to vigorously support FSU. Just like what happened when the Virginia legislature forced UVa to back VaTech into the ACC.
At the time of any SEC invite to FSU, it would be a financial life preserver and there is no way that the pols in Florida would allow UF to block that. Right now by far the biggest concern at the FSU athletic department is how FSU can possibly keep up with UF given the difference in funds from the SEC and the ACC.
LikeLike
I’ve been lurking here since 2010, and it’s never better than when big (and B1G) moves are happening. With all the talk about Notre Dame possibly joining, I started thinking about scheduling, and about who their rivals really are. Below are all B1G teams, and any others that seem to qualify as potential rivals for ND. This came from:http://www.mcubed.net/ncaaf/series/
The format is: Team/Times played/Record (from ND’s perspective). The site has much more information, including first and last times played, etc.
LikeLike
Sorry. Here is the information.
Air Force 30 (24-6)
Army 39 (39-8-4)
Boston Coll. 26 (17-9)
Ga. Tech. 37 (30-6-1)
Illinois 12 (11-0-1)
IU 29 (23-5-1)
Iowa 24 (13-8-3)
MD 2 (2-0)
Miami (FL) 25. (18-8-1)
UM 44 (18-25-1)
MSU 79 (49-29-1)
Minn. 5 (5-0)
Navy 94 (80-13-1)
NE 16 (7-8-1)
NU 49 (38-9-2)
OSU 6 (2-4)
PSU 19 (9-9-1)
Pitt. 72 (50-21-1)
Purdue 87 (59-26-2)
Rutgers 5 (5-0)
Stanford 35 (22-13)
UCLA 4 (4-0)
USC 92 (50-37-5)
Wisconsin 17 (9-6-2)
We can draw our own conclusions, of course, but the five teams ND has played the most are: Navy, USC, Purdue, MSU, and Pitt. ND has plus records against all but UM, OSU, and PSU.
LikeLike
The list of teams the Irish considered their “rivals” has shifted over time. Before they half-joined the ACC, ND was playing Purdue, MSU, and Michigan annually (or almost annually). But they allowed all those series to lapse, so that they could keep Stanford.
They have partially restored Purdue to the calendar (5 games scheduled from 2024–28). They have two future games apiece against Michigan and MSU. I know Purdue was especially eager to get them back, although I think Michigan and MSU would play them more often if they were available.
LikeLike
I know you’re all waiting to hear how this impacts Rice, but his is really the opening of the fifth or sixth seal I Revelation. when ND and NC make their choices it’s over. The P2 is done. Rump FBS is not viable for small schools. D3 here we come. I hope out new president has UAA on speed dial.
Or maybe we can get a southern version. SMU, TCU, Baylor, Tulane, Tulsa, the service academies. Then in a power move in D3 we can pull in Emory and WashU.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Man, there are a lot of typos in there. I haven’t posted from a phone in a long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me amend that. I want nothing to do with Baylor. Plus SMU and TCU have enough ego to keep throwing good money after bad so they won’t join us.
LikeLike
Way too early locked rivals if ND+STAM+UO+UW join:
Divisions, pods, or more than 3 locked games, produces ridiculous pairings that make no sense. So, I assume 3 locked games per team. This allows the remaining pairs to see each other “reasonably often” (scare quotes intentional).
One immediately sees a math problem. There are 5 Western teams. They cannot all have the same number of Western teams that they play every year, assuming USC and Stanford keep playing ND every year. That leaves you with 13 locks to spread among 5 teams, which is impossible unless you change the rules to allow fractional games.
So, one Western team needs a locked non-Pacific Time game other than Notre Dame. I picked Stanford vs. Northwestern as having more logic to it than any other I could think of.
RU: MD, PSU, MI
MD: RU, PSU, MSU
MI: MSU, OSU, RU
MSU: MI, IU, MD
OSU: MI, PSU, IL
PSU: OSU, MD, RU
IL: NW, OSU, PUR
IU: PUR, MSU, IU
NW: IL, STAN, IU
PUR: IU, ND, IL
ND: PUR, STAN, USC
IA: MN, NE, WI
MN: IA, NE, WI
NE: IA, MN, WI
WI: IA, MN, NE
STAN: ND, UW, NW
UCLA: USC, UO, UW
UO: UW, UCLA, USC
USC: UCLA, ND, UO
UW: UO, STAN, UCLA
LikeLike
Your locks are mostly on target. STAN would probably want at least one CA school every year, and NW would probably want MI or OSU each year to help with attendance. The rest make sense.
A core concept in scheduling should be play each other more not less, so divisions don’t work. Some of the current delays between matches are nuts. Depending on the eventual number of B1G teams, these options seem possible:
1) 16 teams; 9 games; 4 pods; rotate 2 of 4 from other pods every two years
2) 16 teams; 9 games; 3 locked; 6 of 12 rotating every 2 years
3) 18 teams; 10 games; 3 locked; 7 of 14 rotating every 2 years
4) 20 teams; 10 games; 1 locked; 9 of 18 rotating every 2 years
5) 20 teams; 10 games; 3 locked; 7 of 16 rotating basis
I don’t see any way the BIG stays at 16. It puts USC/UCLA on an island. 18 or 20 seem far more likely. My preference would be 20 with these locks for sure:
OSU/MI
PSU/MSU
WI/MN
NE/IA
IN/PU
NW/IL
MD/RU
USC/UCLA
WA/OR
ND/STAN
LikeLike
NW would probably want MI or OSU each year to help with attendance.
Every school wants MI or OSU each year to help with attendance.
I don’t see any way the BIG stays at 16. It puts USC/UCLA on an island.
This was my initial reaction, too. But unless there is a very well kept secret, USC/UCLA were apparently willing to move even if nobody else does. The press all say that the next move is Notre Dame, but the Irish have kept people waiting for decades.
Even if Stanford, UO, and UW all eventually join, travel for their athletes is still going to be miserable. The Olympic sports will have it even worse.
LikeLike
Ehh.
The Dodgers and Giants were 2 time zones away from the nearest MLB team back when traveling from the West Coast to any other MLB city meant days-long train rides.
If you have 5 schools on the West Coast, you can do a lot to alleviate travel issues by having travel partners, forming divisions (and scheduling more games intradivision), sending teams on 2 or 3 or heck, even 4 game road trips, depending on the sport.
LikeLike
The Dodgers and Giants were 2 time zones away from the nearest MLB team back when traveling from the West Coast to any other MLB city meant days-long train rides.
By the time the Dodgers and Giants moved west, they could travel by air. But it is not a valid comparison anyway, because Major League Baseball teams go on the road for weeks at a time, an option not available to most college sports teams.
If you have 5 schools on the West Coast, you can do a lot to alleviate travel issues by having travel partners…
When you see the phrase “travel partner,” it is a sure sign the proposal is not happening.
LikeLike
Huh? Conferences have and still do have travel partners.
Doesn’t the Pac still utilize travel partners for basketball?
LikeLike
You could have 4 pods of 5 with 20.
LikeLike
Yes, mathematically, but good luck coming up with pods that make sense.
LikeLike
Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana, Purdue
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern, Notre Dame
Then 5 in a western pod. Or maybe you get Kansas instead of a 5th western school (KU with NU, IA, etc., IL to eastern group) and put Notre Dame with 4 western schools.
LikeLike
You’ve shown why pods don’t work, at least not with that set of schools. You have Notre Dame in a pod that includes none of its historical rivals. Illinois and Northwestern are not in the same pod. It works mathematically but makes no competitive sense.
LikeLike
No matter how you try to juggle 4×5 pods in a 20 team B1G, there are simply too many negatives for the majority of members (and the networks) to agree any one setup. Every combination splits rivals or creates odd matchups no one wants. The fewer locked games the better. The more conference games the better.
LikeLike
Imposed solutions to sooth the minds of people who like mathematical harmony are how you end up with an airport meeting where schools pissed they don’t play each other annually and unhappy at the impact of those missed games on ticket sales and fund-raising happen.
People forget that an extra million per conference member has utility against schools outside the conference but no utility within conference play where donations, ticket sales, and local sponsorships determine who has greatest resources for 2/3rds or 3/4ths of your football schedule.
In a non-division format TV is going to dictate certain games happen and ADs are going to dictate others. A non-division format is the only way you can keep the power programs happy
LikeLike
If there is a Big20,
I would have 3 annual rivals, another 4 schools played half the time, and the other 12 teams played 1/3rd of the time (which would be about the same as now in terms of minimum frequency B10 teams may play some teams).
I have that category between the locked rivals and others because there are schools like Iowa that have 5 rivals that should be played more than the minimum and schools like Minny that have 4. And this way, the 5 WC schools get to see each other at least half the time.
LikeLike
What’s happening as far as USC/UCLA receiving a full revenue share?Haven’t seen any news on that.
LikeLike
It looks like Oregon and Washington are the key for the PAC to survive. I think it could make it through a limited poaching of Stanford if that were what it took for Notre Dame to jump to the Big Ten. A PAC with Washington/Oregon looks like a more attractive place to play for Houston/TexasTech/Kansas, etc.
LikeLike
I don’t think Stanford has much to do with whether ND will join the Big Ten. They are the most logical 18th team if ND joins. But that would simply be a consequence of ND joining, not a condition of it.
With that said, what kind of league do you have if Cal is your tentpole program in the state of California? I don’t think Houston, Texas Tech, and Kansas would view an invitation to that league as a step up.
LikeLike
I agree that keeping Washington and Oregon are key to PAC survival. However, without USC/ UCLA what is left of the PAC looks a lot like the B12 without TX/OK. With increased travel, unknown rivals, I doubt they will be able to take any B12 school with the exception of BYU. The money is likely to be about the same. The options for the PAC (assuming no losses other than Stanford) are:
1) Stay at 10 like the B12 did if no losses; this may provide the best per school payout
2) Invite San Diego State and maybe some other Mountain West schools. Everyone in the MW has always wanted to be in the PAC, so like the AAC to the B12 the PAC can have any school in this conference they want.
3) Invite BYU with all of its baggage
If WA & OR leave I expect the B12 may be successful in pulling off some of CO, UT, AZ/ASU from the PAC. At that point the PAC will still survive (has better name recognition) but would be little more than a renamed Mountain West.
LikeLike
Honestly, college athletics is bailing water while the ship is rapidly sinking.
-The over 60 crowd can’t move up and down the stadium stairs in order to take in a game at the stadiums even if they can afford the ridiculous prices.
-The under 60 crowd can’t afford to take in a game for a variety of reasons
-CNBC and CBS News were speculating prior to 2020 that anywhere from 25% to 50% of colleges might close nationwide over the next 10 to 20 years
-Which means colleges will have fewer alumni to donate to the university from 2040 onward
-It also doesn’t help that the quantity and quality of coaching in CFB and CBB has been declining since 1990s
So, when you sit down think about it, the desperation of the USC/UCLA move to the Big Ten makes a lot of sense…in the short term anyway…
LikeLike
I think there is a problem with your math. Let’s say 25–50% of colleges close — obviously a dire prediction. That means getting into the remaining ones will be even harder than now. The survivors, which will include every university we are talking about here, will have the luxury of choosing whom they want their alumni to be. They have that power already, but will have even more of it in the future. In response to the demand, some will probably expand, so that they can churn out even more new alumni per year than they do today. They have nothing to worry about.
I do not understand the comment about stadium stairs. CFB stadiums were never very friendly to people with mobility issues, but quite a few of them have renovated to become more accessible. I know USC and Michigan both removed seats in order to do this.
I am not aware of any evidence that the quantity and quality of coaching in CFB and CBB has been declining. Given the escalation of coach salaries, you’d expect more talented people to enter the profession, not less.
LikeLike
He’s talking about the fan base getting older. I think the average CF fan is 50. But it seems its more like 70-75 when people quit going.
LikeLike
The escalation of coaching salaries with regard to slightly above average coaches like James Franklin implies that there are too few top-tier coaches.
With marriage dying out faster than a cell phone battery, young males have no incentive to pursue stressful jobs like being a big-time college football coach.
LikeLike
If ND is adamant about Stanford (Oregon being a given), I’m not so certain Washington makes the cut. If 20 members is the ceiling, I think the B1G will leave an open spot for UNC. I didn’t realize their was so.much bad blood between Oregon and Washington (particularly with Knight).. According to the LA Times, USC doesn’t care to have any.other PAC 12 members come.along. They think being the only west coast island in a super conference (along with UCLA) is great for recruiting and media exposure. The B1G better grab Oregon quick.
LikeLike
Listening to (very well connected LA Times scribe) Bill Plaschke talk about this on a podcast. Sorry for the typos, (‘there’ etc), wrote it in a traffic jam on the 405 😊
LikeLike
I am not sure I understand your statement about “Oregon being a given.” Conferences don’t want odd numbers. The Big Ten is about to be at 16. ND plus Stanford would be 18.
Are you saying they would admit Oregon and stay at 19 for the next 10+ years until the ACC grant of rights expires, and then maybe (but maybe not) UNC agrees to be #20?
The B1G better grab Oregon quick.
Why? The Ducks have nowhere else to go.
LikeLike
I do not understand why the Big Ten would have UNC on its wish list. Here is a ranking of football brands by the Wall Street Journal (2019). Washington is 19, Oregon is 21, UNC is 50 and UVA is 53.
1 Texas
2 Ohio State
3 Alabama
4 Michigan
5 Notre Dame
6 Georgia 138,088,467
7 Oklahoma
8 Auburn
9 LSU
10 Tennessee
11 Florida
12 Texas A & M
13 Penn State
14 Wisconsin
15 Nebraska
16 Arkansas
17 South Carolina
18 Iowa
19 Washington
20 Michigan State
21 Oregon
22 Mississippi
23 Southern California
24 UCLA
25 Arizona State
26 Clemson
27 Florida State
28 Virginia Tech
29 Kansas State
30 Oklahoma State
31 Kentucky
32 Minnesota
33 Texas Tech
34 Stanford
35 Miss State
36 Georgia Tech
37 Utah
38 Colorado
39 Kansas
40 California Berkeley
41 Miami of Florida
42 Texas Christian
43 Iowa State
44 Indiana
45 Northwestern
46 North Carolina State
47 Louisville
48 Arizona
49 Illinois
50 North Carolina
51 Maryland
52 Wash State
53 Virginia
54 Purdue
55 Oregon State
https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019
LikeLike
It’s a question whether you are adding football brands or TV viewers. Maryland and Rutgers were added for regional demographics, not because their football is great. That would be the argument for UNC. (I am not pro-UNC, only pointing out the reasoning if they do it.)
LikeLike
There’s something fishy about that list. Missouri is ranked #56. But most recent numbers have Missouri in the top 20 in athletics spending.
LikeLike
Andy: “There’s something fishy about that list. Missouri is ranked #56. But most recent numbers have Missouri in the top 20 in athletics spending.”
I abbreviated the data. The original listing from the WSJ read like this:
College Football Value Rankings
RANK SCHOOL REVENUES ($) 2018 VALUE ($) 2017 VALUE ($)
1 Texas 163,928,296 1,105,493,378 1,243,124,000
2 Ohio State 136,574,384 1,048,166,317 1,510,482,000
3 Alabama 140,831,439 1,009,903,620 930,001,000
4 Michigan 133,665,548 924,625,003 892,951,000
5 Notre Dame 118,740,294 913,401,562 856,938,000
6 Georgia 138,088,467 891,099,506 822,310,000
7 Oklahoma 126,416,865 885,558,053 1,001,967,000
8 Auburn 128,960,499 871,907,615 724,191,000
9 LSU 122,703,938 852,445,897 910,927,000
10 Tennessee 113,766,836 727,849,384 745,640,000
LikeLike
2017? It doesn’t really square with the numbers I saw from 2021. Missouri was top 20. Hard to believe they’ve moved up 37 spots in just 4 years but maybe they did?
LikeLike
I think the cleanest way to settle all of this is as follows:
The Big Ten takes USC, UCLA, Stanford, Notre Dame, Washington, and Oregon. Stops at 20.
The remaining 7 Pac 12 schools add BYU, Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, San Diego State to get to 14. Optionally could add UNLV and Boise State if they want. They could still survive as a conference, payout would go down somewhat.
The SEC adds UNC, Virginia, Clemson, Florida State. Stays at 20.
The ACC still has 10 of its schools. Adds Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF to get to 16. Still a decent conference, payout goes down somewhat.
4 power conferences. All 4 get playoff access. SEC and Big Ten make far more money than the other two.
LikeLike
Here’s where your logic is flawed…and it’s why I think the Pac-12 is doomed:
The Pac-12 sees itself as an academic elite. Like a Big Ten lite. Like a West Coast Ivy League.
If they can keep the other 10, they’re fine. If they go to 8, they might be fine. Seriously. They don’t want Boise State and San Diego State. Too much pride.
It’s why I think a quasi-merger is very possible. By annexing 8 of the Pac-12 teams, they dissolve that conference (for all that that matters). The Big Ten becomes a contiguous national brand that dominates almost in every sport (minus football for the time being)…but even with football, it gets as many or more eyeballs than the superior SEC football product.
LikeLike
Delany is a UNC grad. Decent Football, and storied basketball, in a huge, growing media market. Very good academically. Yes, the big10 will keep a spot open for UNC.
As the $$ gap widens the ACC barons (UNC, Duke, Clemson, VaTech) will get very very antsy as they can’t “keep up with the Joneses”. I see no way that the GoR holds until the end of its current term.
LikeLike
Delany is a UNC grad.
So the ex-commissioner is deciding whether the Big Ten will hold a place for them?
I see no way that the GoR holds until the end of its current term.
Of course there’s a way. Dissolving it probably requires at least a 2/3rds vote, if not 3/4ths or unanimous (you would need to look at the details). There are certainly more than enough schools to block such a move, because they would be worse off than now. The whole point of a grant of rights is that you cannot just walk away because you found a better deal.
For more than a decade, people on this board have predicted that schools would escape their grant of rights. It has never happened.
LikeLike
UNC isn’t going to the B1G without UVA or Duke. They’ll stay put or go to the SEC before a solo move to the B1G. I’d be very curious to see what the B1G’s internal research says about the value of WA/OR vs. UNC/UVA (or Duke).
LikeLike
If Stanford doesn’t come, I can see them holding those last two spots for UNC/Duke. I can also see the SEC moving heaven and earth to add them. I just don’t see either conference going over 20.
LikeLike
I remember when folks on this board said, “16-team conferences don’t work.” I always thought that was a weak argument, based primarily on the failure of the 16-team WAC. People were extrapolating from one data point.
So now that both the SEC and Big Ten are about to have 16, I hesitate to trust anyone’s judgment as to what the endpoint is. Scheduling is difficult with large numbers, but they said that about 16 — and here we are!
LikeLike
Exactly people act as if the number 16 caused the failure. The WAC16 failed because the rules of day mandated divisions and no divisional alignment permitted all schools with mutual desire to play annually to do so.
Larger than 16 member leagues in the past fractured over regulatory issues of postseason play and acceptable scholarship limits and disagreements over what was included in a scholarship, not over being too large.
LikeLike
Which happened because they were too large.
LikeLike
I never said there would be an odd number. I believe the first pairing will be Oregon and Notre Dame, with 19-20 being either Stanford/Wasington or Stanford/UNC. It’s actually Stanford who has nowhere to go, and may not want to. The ONLY incentive they have to join the B1G is media exposure for their sports. If the ACC isn’t raided by the SEC, throwing their grant of rights into chaos, UNC is likely off the table as well. Point being, Stanford, if interested (and at the behest of the B1G presidents and Notre Dame) is likely 19 at some point in the future. If UNC remains shackled to the ACC or chooses the SEC, Washington will likely be Stanford’s expansionl partner.
LikeLike
According to Jon Wilner, the guy from the Mercury News in the Bay Area that broke this story, it’s equally likely that Stanford abandons major college football in the not distant future. Either way, I don’t think Stanford is the first name unless it is a requisite for ND – and I don’t think that’s the case.
LikeLike
Seems like Notre Dame is between the proverbial rock and hard place. We all know they far prefer to remain independent with a ‘national’ schedule rather than a ‘regional’ conference slate. But the deal they now have with the ACC traps them into the East Coast for half their schedule if you include Navy, and the money is guaranteed to remain low given the peanuts that ESPN is paying the ACC until 2036 and the peanuts that NBC is paying ND for their home games.
Now comes the New Big Ten which will be truly a coast-to-coast national conference with HUGE revenue payouts, four longtime ND rivals and an evolution of college football that makes it clear that their will be a Big Two, Little Three and an even lower caste of MAC-like rabble.
And then there’s this: What if the SEC poaches FSU and Clemson? The ACC then has zero top brands, the TV revenue drops even further and ND’s strength of schedule gets even weaker.
I don’t think that ND wants to join the Big Ten. But I think that’s their best option right now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think that ND wants to join the Big Ten. But I think that’s their best option right now.
Their other option is to re-up with NBC and wait. They will get a bump in their NBC deal, because sports rights always go up. They won’t make as much as the Big Ten would pay, but if it were solely about money they would be in the Big Ten already.
What if the SEC poaches FSU and Clemson?
I see no way that can happen before 2036, but let’s say it does. The remaining league would be similar to the original Big East, which Notre Dame was happy to be a member of (in all sports except football).
The question is when the money gap becomes so huge that ND simply cannot resist it. They would have severe blowback from some of their big money donors, which they would have to manage.
LikeLike
Marc: “The remaining league would be similar to the original Big East, which Notre Dame was happy to be a member of (in all sports except football).”
Not really. The big difference is that ND is obligated to play 5 football games each year vs ACC schools. And if Clemson and FSU are removed from that pool, you’re looking at five East Coast cupcakes in addition to East Coast cupcake Navy..
LikeLike
The last 5 years, FSU has played sub-.500 football, basically no different than a random ACC opponent. Even if you assume FSU becomes a powerhouse again, they and Clemson are usually not on the schedule in the same year, and sometimes neither is on it. So basically, that’s (at most) one marquee game per year that the Irish have to replace, which is not that difficult. Notre Dame can always find good teams that want to play them.
Also, you assume there is no ability for ND to renegotiate their deal with the ACC if the league composition changes. When ND joined, the ACC was solidly in the Power Five, and in a position to insist on 5 games a year. The ACC without FSU and Clemson is a fundamentally different beast.
But anyhow, 5 games with the denuded ACC poses no problem for Notre Dame. Even without FSU and Clemson, the ACC is stocked with the types of teams that ND has historically played regularly.
LikeLike
The real issues Notre Dame has to deal with is recruiting and playoff access. If all the 4* and 5* high school kids want to play in the SEC or B1G will ND be able to put a team on the field that can win a national championship? What access will ND get in the next playoff deal? The money is nice, but those two issues are what will likely drive ND to join the B1G. Once ND comes to the conclusion that they will never win another national championship as an independent than they will be ready to join a conference.
LikeLike
Duke would obviously be a feather in any academically minded conference’s cap, but minus Coach K, I think that’s a gamble. AAU notwithstanding, I would much rather invite one of the Football oriented Florida schools. I believe Miami might be available even after an SEC raid.
LikeLike
Offhand, I cannot think of a power conference realignment that was driven by academics if the football revenue did not make sense. And Duke’s football value is peanuts. Sure, every university president would love to be aligned with Duke, but conferences are sports alliances first.
While one can never be positive, I think it’s extremely likely that Duke basketball remains relevant. Power programs have built-in advantages that tend to persist, regardless of who coaches them. They may stumble if they hire a bad coach, but eventually they almost always return to their winning ways. You could have safely predicted that UNC basketball would survive Dean Smith’s retirement, and Coach K will be no different.
But major conference realignment is not primarily about basketball or academics, which means Duke is problematic even if Coach K were still there and 30 years younger.
LikeLike
“While one can never be positive, I think it’s extremely likely that Duke basketball remains relevant.”
Not so long ago, many of the small private schools in the current Big East (Georgetown, etc.) were treated as big national brands. The conference as a whole is still relevant (even as some brands like Georgetown are down), but those schools have significantly faded in national appeal as 1) conference rivals went to bigger conferences (mostly the ACC) and 2) Other conferences started football-powered networks that provided a) extra money to invest into basketball and b) more exposure for those basketball teams.
If Duke doesn’t get picked up by the SEC or Big Ten, I see it going the way of the Big East schools, for much the same reasons. In fact, you might see some sort of division of the ACC leftovers between the Big East and Big 12.
Duke will have a greater relevance than those schools, because former ACC members will still schedule them for non-conference games. But I doubt they’ll be a top TV brand in 15 years if they’re not in one of the big conferences.
LikeLike
Agree fully. It’s pretty tough to maintain clout as a small private school even with stellar academics and basketball. There’s no reason for Duke to be more valuable than Georgetown in the long run, for instance.
LikeLike
@Richard – I think Duke is very different than a place like Georgetown or even the other main blue blood basketball programs like UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. At least for my generation and younger, Duke basketball is actually what Notre Dame football was to prior generations as the knee-jerk instant “love them or hate them” team in college sports at a true national level. It goes beyond the normal sports hate for teams that happen to be winning a lot at a given time (like Alabama now or the Patriots during their Tom Brady era) and more to the core that there’s a fundamental gut reaction to the institutions themselves – the way people think about Duke basketball and ND football is the way people think about the Yankees, Cowboys and Lakers where fans universally have such instant strong feelings about them no matter where they live and no matter if they’re rivals or even regular opponents of their favorite teams at all.
All of that is to say is that Duke is really the one program that can leverage basketball in conference realignment in a very football-focused world.
FWIW, John U. Bacon, a reporter that has covered Michigan for many years, was asked in an interview with Paul Finebaum the other day (who I generally can’t stand listening to for more than 90 seconds at a time but I checked out his podcasts because he had some good realignment-focused guests) about whether the Big Ten would be interested in any ACC schools. Bacon replied clearly and without hesitation that he has heard from the league consistently over the years that the Big Ten would want UNC and Duke specifically. It wasn’t a general response that the Big Ten would be interested in a bunch of ACC schools that could have value (such as UVA, Florida State, Clemson, etc.), but rather UNC and Duke would be the specific targets. Once again, take that FWIW.
LikeLike
Friend who worked at a high level in the SEC in the late 80’s early 90’s says UNC Duke were atop the wish list then
LikeLike
Maryland would love to be in the same conference as Duke. Would make Coach K squirm. He hate us because we dipped for more dough. Refused to schedule us. Since the Terps left the ACC, due to his request, not one ACC-B1G challenge game. My wish list as a Terp for further B1G poaching is UVA, UNC and GT. F Duke.
LikeLike
I commented earlier that z33k nailed USC/UCLA to the Big Ten. I also found something that I proposed that, in retrospect, I bet Jim Phillips wishes he had considered given that it’s pretty much what the B1G appears to be doing now:
“One other idea comes to mind. The ACC adds USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal for football only (and drops Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest and Duke).
Along with benefitting the ACC independently, doing something like that MIGHT be an enticement to Notre Dame.”
In retrospect, the “football-only” idea was an unnecessary complication. And I should have added Louisville to the drop list. In fact, had Phillips pursued this option, he would have had a damn near perfect “Coastal Conference” with East and West groupings. Then it would have been up to ESPN to placate (buy off) Syracuse, BC, Wake, Duke, and Louisville. I think they would have done so, and I suspect that’s what they will be doing now anyway when the ACC collapses, which it will. And ND would have been sorely tempted to jump in 100% at that point.
LikeLike
It was interesting to suggest, but no way the Big Ten would have allowed USC/UCLA to go anywhere else.
If they put themselves up for sale, Big Ten was going to be first in line before ACC.
But you are right, that would have been a solution to get ND to commit to some kind of bi-coastal grouping.
It’s just hard to see that working in practice though when the Big Ten wouldn’t sit still and let that happen.
LikeLike
I don’t know how much say the Big Ten would have had. The idea presumes ESPN buy-in and further presumes a group of six from the Pac. Was the Big Ten prepared to match that kind of offer? The Big Ten didn’t NEED to do anything; but the ACC — as I think we know now — has been on life support and needed to take drastic action to preserve itself as a separate, viable, “big boy” league. Phillips failed to lead them to take the sort of action that was required. Now they are left hoping for SEC or Big Ten invites while the walls slowly cave in.
LikeLike
Yes because USC, UCLA have always seen themselves more like OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc. than any other schools. Giant schools with prestigious academics and huge research budgets/AAU that are high minded.
That’s who they want to be with if forced to join a national conference.
There was never going to be an ACC option for them, they knew Big Ten would take them.
LikeLike
Washington surely fits that category. Maybe not the same athletically but always top 5 in research.
LikeLike
I think what we don’t know is are the B1G and SEC headed for 20 or 24. If it’s 20 then there’s more than enough good schools to go around and both the B1G and the SEC are going to add nothing but high quality schools. If it’s 24 then that puts the two in direct competition, and there could be a real battle over who gets the top ACC schools like UNC, and I could see Duke and maybe NC State thrown in to sweeten the deal.
LikeLike
One other idea comes to mind. The ACC adds USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal….(and drops Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest and Duke).
Conferences and schools generally do not re-align unless the benefits are compelling. At the time that Jim Phillips might have proposed this, the ACC was already struggling. To switch from a struggling West Coast league to a struggling East Coast league is not a very compelling idea.
Along with benefitting the ACC independently, doing something like that MIGHT be an enticement to Notre Dame.
What would this give ND that they do not have now? You could say, “a national schedule,” but they have a nationals schedule already.
LikeLike
I also think there is some overestimation here about whether the SEC covets UVA and/or UNC. I don’t think they do, and, in any event, not nearly as much as the B1G apparently does. But . . . if the SEC did go after them, and also either Duke or Wake Forest, then I think ND . . . might . . . give the SEC a look. If the SEC wants ND, and I’m not sure they do, and, in any event, certainly not as much as the B1G does, that would be the way to pitch ND.
LikeLike
Anything is possible, but it’s just unlikely that ND ever joins the SEC.
The cultural fit matters as we saw with Texas/OU to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the Big Ten.
ND’s cultural fit is ACC or Big Ten. The issue is money disparity there. There’s no way for the SEC to suddenly become a cultural fit for ND by plugging in one or two schools.
UNC on the other hand is truly in the middle. I can understand the arguments for them going SEC just as I can argue for them going Big Ten. They really are “in the middle” and the one where what their friends want may matter (UVA and Duke).
LikeLike
I don’t think UVA or UNC do anything for the SEC’s bottom line, though. I’d say they are a net negative, which is why I don’t think the SEC is an option for them.
LikeLike
That’s totally wrong. UNC would be hugely profitable fir the SEC. Virginia less so but still an option.
LikeLike
I don’t see how UNC would be “hugely profitable” for the SEC. UNC is not in the top 40 in average attendance, and in the WSJ college football “value” ranking, they are #50, behind everyone in the SEC other than Vanderbilt and Missouri. And I think it’s fair to say that the SEC doesn’t put near the premium on academic standing that the B1G does, so that piece doesn’t hold nearly the sway with the SEC that it does in certain B1G circles.
https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019
LikeLike
I don’t think those WSJ rankings tell the whole story. I’ve heard for years that UNC is a top target for the SEC. Their overall brand value is very high.
LikeLike
The value rankings being cited are from 2018, which makes them dramatically outdated. Missouri is getting much more from the SEC now than they were in 2018. The two schools most affected are probably UMaryland and Rutgers.
In 2018, a full B1G share was around $50 million. Neither Maryland nor RU were even close to that. In fact in 2018, RU’s athletic income was less than $30 million. In the next few years both UMd and RU will be getting full B1G shares and will have paid back their loans from the conference. Each team will certainly by getting $90 million from the B1G or so as opposed to less than $30 million total revenue.
The new schools in the Big 12 will be getting jumps soon also. This list of schools and athletic income is certainly a moving target.
LikeLike
Peter Griffin: “I don’t think UVA or UNC do anything for the SEC’s bottom line, though. I’d say they are a net negative, which is why I don’t think the SEC is an option for them.”
“Other than a negative, UVA nor UNC do anything for the Big Ten’s bottom line either.”
LikeLike
They’d do a lot for tuition dollars by providing future students. The midwest is aging and the B10 schools need to look elsewhere for students.
LikeLike
Duke+UVA+WakeForest and ND!!!! Protestants and Catholics together! Mass hysteria!
LikeLike
I’m skeptical right now that the Big Ten will go to 20 without ND right now. 18 without ND seems possible with Oregon/Washington. 20 with ND, Stanford, Oregon, Washington seems possible.
There aren’t an infinite number of seats here; the Big Ten is trying to grab the national brands/markets as efficiently as possible in order to minimize frictions and maximize quality of matchups, how often teams can play each other, etc.
I doubt the Big Ten ever goes above 24, 24 is probably the absolute maximum number that this conference ever reaches.
And if they can keep the number at 20 or 22 while getting ND, they will try to do that.
LikeLike
If the B1G had its choice right now, who do you think they would take Oregon/Washington or UNC/UVA? I think UNC/UVA is their top choice after Notre Dame.
LikeLike
UNC, UVA is more important for the Big Ten.
Big Ten has been wanting mid-Atlantic secured since it took Maryland.
There’s 4 growth regions of the country: Mid-atlantic (NC/SC/VA/MD), Southeast (FL/GA), Southwest (TX), West (CA/AZ).
USC, UCLA anchors Big Ten in the heart of the West.
UNC/UVA would anchor Big Ten in heart of the Mid-Atlantic.
Having said that, Big Ten will likely take Washington/Oregon regardless to protect its West flank and build around USC/UCLA.
LikeLike
Big Ten has been wanting mid-Atlantic secured since it took Maryland.
It feels like eons ago that the Big Ten took Maryland. We all assumed it was part of an eventual push down the Eastern seaboard, but no one then was talking about USC/UCLA. Now that they have done it, I wonder how UNC/UVA compare to adding more Western teams. It is not so clear to me.
LikeLike
Yeah it’s hard to know where this ends.
Basically Big Ten presidents really have to be thinking about what final formation of the Big Ten looks like.
Can they foresee a 20-24 team Big Ten by the mid-2030s?
Are they confident about their ability to maintain such a large grouping (double the size of the pre-2011 conference).
LikeLike
Yeah, why choose? If ND is willing to play along, go to 24 with Stanford, Cal, UW, ND, UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech.
The B10 could set up a potent academic brand that would be close to the Ivies with no other grouping near (important for those big Midwestern publics in states with decreasing HS populations that want/need those OOS/international tuition dollars).
LikeLike
BTW, even at 24 schools, you could still play all schools at least every third year (so similar to now in some cases). 2 annual rivals, the other 21 every third year.
LikeLike
At that size you risk splintering as schools do not feel connected and just chase their own interests. It’s one reason the B10 has always chose to be gradual with expansion. The new member have to feel part of the collective whole and be willing to put the good of the conference above their own wants. Is that possible with a rapid jump to 24? Is playing once every 3 years truly a conference relationship? You wouldn’t even play everyone in basketball every year.
I think they will be very careful about future growth.
LikeLike
Well, B10 schools already play some other B10 schools only every 3 years in practice.
LikeLike
Oh, and I don’t believe the ACC schools will be available until the mid 2030’s anyway, so first the Pac schools. If ND comes, ND+Stanford+Cal+UW.
Otherwise, just add Stanford+Cal.
LikeLike
Under Delany, it would likely be UNC/UVA. Under Warren? UW and UO might bring more money, and they certainly provide some regional games for USC/UCLA. But UVA and UNC are closer, are better academically, and provide a growth region of interest. I’d guess the B10 is actually torn about which direction to go. I’m sure UMD and others lean east, while NE probably lean west.
LikeLike
Brian: “UW and UO might bring more money, and they certainly provide some regional games for USC/UCLA. But UVA and UNC are closer, are better academically, and provide a growth region of interest.”
Difference is that the ACC’s exit fees are far more onerous.
https://rubbingtherock.com/2021/07/27/clemson-football-wont-leave-acc/
LikeLike
Difference is that the ACC’s exit fees are far more onerous.
This is true, but university presidents tend to have a longer-term perspective than fans. If you believe that UVA and UNC are ultimately the schools you want, then you wait.
LikeLike
Any ACC teams are being discussed for 2030s.
Big Ten has always waited for the schools it wants to become available before expanding.
If the presidents want UNC/UVA next (if ND says no), then they will wait until the 2030s and stand pat.
My hunch though is that they will take UW/UO regardless to build the Western presence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that this is an absolutely nasty comment. Schadenfreude big time. The future of big time sports at BC, Syracuse and perhaps Pitt is in serious jeopardy. At least for BC this is totally self created. Syracuse probably deserves this too.
The football Big East was an actual P5 (6) conference. Had the football conference remained together, it would have remained a major conference.
When U Miami joined the BE, their football team was in the dumpster. Whether there was a causal or coincidental connection, after joining the BE, Miami was back in the national championship picture again. Then with Miami as the leader, The Canes, joined by BC and VaTech joined the ACC. VaTech was pushed in by UVa (at the demand of the VA state legislature). As I recall, Syracuse was to be invited until replaced by VaTech.
U Miami showed that it could not be trusted. Just weeks before it flipped to the ACC, the president of the school, Donna Shalala, made a speech thanking the BE for taking the Canes and pledging fidelity to the league. Very soon thereafter Miami was gone. Given Miami’s geographic location, a flip to the ACC was not totally nuts, but was really nasty.
VaTech really should have been in the ACC with the other “local” southeastern schools, so no one blamed them.
BC’s move made absolutely no sense. The BE probably could have survived the loss of Miami and VaTech, though it would have been hard. The loss of three teams was too much.
BC left all their traditional rivals (including basketball rivals) in the northeast to go to a conference where the closest rival was in Maryland. (And there was not much money involved, not exactly like RU to the B1G). Many of the northeast basketball teams refused to play BC for a while. The State of Connecticut sued BC, but the case was ultimately dismissed.
UConn, Providence, St. John’s, etc, do now schedule BC every few years in bball. Those were the key local rivals for BC basketball.
Now BC honestly has no where to go other than to hope the ACC survives, or they wind up with the group of leftovers (including Syracuse and possibly Pitt, though Pitt has a reasonable shot at the Big 12). Other than ND requesting them as a partner, even with the Boston market, the B1G, SEC and Big12 would probably not take BC. (Though maybe the Big 12 would be desperate)
Once those three were gone, I guess that it was only a matter of time until others left. Syracuse and Pitt were invited to the ACC and it was clear neither had anywhere else to go, so they helped the BE ship sink. Neither was ever going to be invited to the B1G and the Big 12 was not terribly interested at that time either, though Pitt might now be very interesting to the Big 12. Cuse is actually worse off than BC, because they have the number 85 TV market and are irrelevant to NYC, which is 250 miles away. Cuse now offers nothing.
Of the remainders, Rutgers won the Willy Wonka golden ticket while UConn was out in the cold. UConn football is essentially a dead independent along with UMass. UConn basketball got back to the Big East basketball league which is worth maybe $15 million per year.
LikeLike
I’d love to know how tv telecasts of ACC hoops are doing in the NE. I suspect ESPN has liked that outcome. Joining ACC has helped brand awareness of the northern schools in the south.
The ACC is really an optimization of markets.
It can’t produce SEC/B1G money but it gets great basketball to markets that like great college basketball.
The ACC just has a hard time not being seen as Clemson and the other guys in football since Florida State and Va Tech aren’t what they were. The real money comes from being a football beast.
LikeLike
The future of big time sports at BC, Syracuse and perhaps Pitt is in serious jeopardy.
Are they big-time programs even now? When was the last time any of them was a big deal in football, which is the sport that drives all the revenue?
The what-ifs are hard to game out. But as I distinctly recall, the Big East was regarded as the weakest of the then-Power Six. “Big Least” and “Big Easy” were two of its nicknames. Without Miami and Virginia Tech, it was sure to become what the American is today — the conference that stronger leagues plunder when they want to expand.
No one yet has suggested a credible way to puncture the ACC’s grant of rights, so Pitt, Syracuse, and BC are likely safe till 2036. To predict past that is a fool’s errand. It is very possible they wind up in a lower-tier conference much like the Big East would have been if it had stayed together. Just because those leagues are not the Big Ten does not mean they are dead. Occasionally, a team from one of those leagues has a magical year, as Cincinnati just did.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big Least (I do not recall the Big Easy) was the common nickname and the loss of Miami and VaTech alone might have been fatal. There were a few fill in schools, Louisville, Cincinnati, and maybe a couple of others that potentially could have maintained P6 status. An earlier version of the current Big 12. With BC also gone, there were just not that many viable replacements, even for a low level P6 conference.
When I say big-time, I mean part of a P5 conference. Pitt, Cuse and BC could all maintain D1 sports, other than football, with a downgrade in conference. The income difference between G5 and even the worst (ACC) payout from P5 is probably at least $15 or $20 million. Compared to the SEC and B1G, well in excess of $50 million per year.
LikeLike
UNC, UVA is more important for the Big Ten.
Big Ten has been wanting mid-Atlantic secured since it took Maryland.
There’s 4 growth regions of the country: Mid-atlantic (NC/SC/VA/MD), Southeast (FL/GA), Southwest (TX), West (CA/AZ).
USC, UCLA anchors Big Ten in the heart of the West.
UNC/UVA would anchor Big Ten in heart of the Mid-Atlantic.
Having said that, Big Ten will likely take Washington/Oregon regardless to protect its West flank and build around USC/UCLA.
LikeLike
The Big East is the northeastern basketball conference.
Obviously, Duke, NC, and some others have national basketball interest, but the ACC is no more a factor (and might be less) than the B1G is in northeastern basketball.
Remember that the ACC did not take UConn while the Huskies were at the height of their men’s and women’s basketball prominence. There were rumors that BC ended UConn’s ACC chances, but I do not think that it was ever confirmed.
LikeLike
Whenever the ACC opens up, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SEC goes for a package that expands the geographic area while keeping rivalries together:
UNC
NC State
Virginia
1 Football power (probably FSU, but Miami and Clemson have a chance).
A lot of people want to pair Duke with UNC, but I think getting both public schools in the large (and growing) state is a better long term bet, and makes it easy politically for UNC.
Virginia Tech probably makes a better addition in many ways than UVA, but (original ACC member) UVA has longer rivalries with the Carolina schools (and a particularly historic one with UNC). That’s enough to make it the first choice.
North Carolina and Virginia border existing SEC states Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia, allowing for the creation (and renewal) of many rivalries.
SEC’s basketball would be greatly improved, the football would still have plenty of powers, inventory would increase, and many more fans would be added.
LikeLike
Interesting take from Jon Wilner
In all candor, I believe this could mark the beginning of the end of major college football for the Bay Area schools.
Their relatively low value within the college football marketplace is one reason for that bleak outlook.
…
The other reason for our skepticism is the economic landscape.
At some point in the near future, college athletes likely will be declared employees, or pseudo-employees, and receive compensation from the schools for their services.
There’s no chance Stanford would ever do that, and we doubt Cal would take the plunge. On both campuses, the faculty would revolt like it’s Paris in 1789.
…
Unrelated, but also mentioned in the article is that 3 years ago ESPN offered to take over the PAC Networks and extend the conference’s Tier 1 deal, but Larry Scott turned them down. If Scott could have convinced the LA schools to extend the GOR as part of the deal with ESPN (no guarantee, but not out of the question) the PAC would find itself in a similar situation to the ACC; trapped in a below market contract, but stuck together. Not ideal but still better for all the PAC members outside of USC, UCLA and maybe Oregon and Washington if they can secure Big Ten bids.
LikeLike
Wilner knows a heck of a lot more than me. But college sports are still the curb appeal for a lot of these elite schools. Are Cal and Stanford willing to be a Harvard and a Yale? Maybe. It happened 80 years ago…when the Ivys disappeared. And if they throw in the towel on football, does that diminish where their other VERY elite Olympic sports compete? Stanford’s swimming in a league with Fresno State and UNLV? Eesh. That’s going to take a toll.
As a national college sports fan, I think those two schools have appeal. I see their value…and if sharing research dollars is as big a deal as I’ve heard, why would they want to sever ties with UCLA and USC (and not have the chance to merge with the Big Ten’s AAU’s)???
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you think the ACC and Pac-12 now regret their “no” votes on expanding the College Football Playoff?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They probably regret it, but not sure voting ‘yes’ would have prevented USC from moving on. I view their move similarly to UT’s move to the SEC. From UT’s perspective, getting back to the top of the college football world was not going to happen in the lesser Big 12, especially with your arch rival A&M achieving new heights in the SEC, even though the path to the playoff would have been easier in the Big 12.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter because any changes to the CFP contract required unanimity.
Big Ten was going to veto it regardless.
12 team CFP was not in the Big Ten’s interest at that point in time.
LikeLike
It is not the same when you are the last remaining no vote. Because the Pac-12 and ACC were also saying no — for different reasons — the committee could never satisfy all of them in the allotted time. Imagine that the Pac-12 and ACC are enthusiastic yes votes, and the only remaining problem is to satisfy the Big Ten. That is a very different negotiation.
12 team CFP was not in the Big Ten’s interest at that point in time.
Where did you get that from? No article I have read (and there are many) suggested the Big Ten was a categorical no.
They probably regret it, but not sure voting ‘yes’ would have prevented USC from moving on.
I agree with you, but the remaining conferences would have had the expanded playoff money locked in. Next time around, they won’t be negotiating with the Big Ten as equals anymore. The playoff will be whatever Greg Sankey and Kevin Warren say it is.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/pac-12-acc-had-chance-to-save-themselves-botched-playoff-142405174.html
The decision by the Pac-12 and ACC in January to block a 12-team, six-automatic-bid College Football Playoff proposal could go down as most ill-advised in the history of college athletics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if they had agreed to it, why would the Big Ten?
That proposal required unanimity.
LikeLike
Some have mentioned this before, but I hope that Kevin Warren has his NFL hat on when he thinks about how to build the value of the Big Ten football postseason. That’s really the untapped well of $ here.
Why export the postseason value to the CFP or Bowl system?
Imagine a Big Ten tournament that leads to the Rose Bowl.
A 4-6 game conference championship tournament could probably be worth insane money if it ends at the Rose Bowl with the Big Ten taking complete control of the Rose Bowl.
Make the Rose Bowl into the Big Ten’s Super Bowl.
That’s the real power play at the end of this; I don’t know if the Big Ten executives can see that, but to me, that’s really where the biggest $/exposure/power/control would be.
LikeLike
Totally agree but then I think the conference will have to take more PAC members to basically kill that conference.
Best case scenario would be a plus 1 after the bowls. And in most years that would be the B1G vs SEC champ. Although you could see a SEC rematch but that would be lame. I don’t think either conference would want to exclude other FBS schools from the possibility of a NCG however unlikely.
LikeLike
Yeah I think Washington/Oregon are almost guaranteed to be coming to the Big Ten.
I’ve thought about it a lot, and it’s basically to protect the Western flank which is just USC/UCLA right now. What if USC/UCLA have a down period? What happens to cfb in the West?
I think if you add Washington/Oregon, you’re almost guaranteed to have one of those 4 be good in any given stretch of time, it just eases the burden over there and simplifies travel.
Obviously if ND is involved, add Stanford as well to plant a flag in SF.
A Big Ten with USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Stanford gives you control of the West Coast and enough strength to justify the Big Ten taking full control of the Rose Bowl.
And yeah just have a BCS style championship after the bowls.
LikeLike
Under Delaney B1G as weird as this will sound, stepped lightly enough to not gut those they raided. None of Big XII, ACC, Big East was harmed so deeply they were presumed to no longer be in the “big boy club”.
A PAC12 that also loses Oregon and Washington and maybe Stanford has a tenuous claim to being in the club. No one left is a brand that is top tier of P5.
Delaney era a second hit would be unlikely. Post-Delaney who knows?
LikeLike
Under Delaney B1G as weird as this will sound, stepped lightly enough to not gut those they raided.
Was that Delany “stepping lightly,” or did he simply not have the chances? Did he ever say no to an expansion he could have had that made financial sense?
LikeLike
He had told the Sun Belt commissioner that his presidents asked him assess whether Big East, ACC, Big XII would survive and remain viable. So likely more a mandate from his bosses than his own concern for collegiality.
LikeLike
I think NIL and players getting paid is enough of a sea change to merit dividing the sport up.
All the schools aligned with the Big Ten that are financially sustainable joining together and setting up a system that makes sense for them in the context of competing for championships.
I think the Big Ten taking USC/UCLA is basically a statement that the old world of cfb is over.
Big Ten is out to reorganize the sport and take all the schools that make sense along the way.
Which is why I’m struggling to see why Big Ten would leave Washington/Oregon out…
LikeLike
He had told the Sun Belt commissioner that his presidents asked him assess whether Big East, ACC, Big XII would survive and remain viable. So likely more a mandate from his bosses than his own concern for collegiality.
Still, as far as we know, he never actually turned down any expansion that suited the Big Ten’s proprietary interests. Anyhow, the Big East did not survive, and the Big XII is down to half of its original membership.
LikeLike
Zeek: “Obviously if ND is involved, add Stanford as well to plant a flag in SF.”
Couple of issues here. USC reportedly doesn’t want any more “West Coast” schools going to the Big Ten. And Stanford may not want to join us.
If ND joins the B1G, I think the other school will be Colorado. If you look at a map, it makes a USC/UCLA less of a stretch, brings in a good TV market and would give the Big Ten schools in all four time zones. Buffs are also unhappy in the Pac-12, especially the Pac-12 Network.
LikeLike
USC reportedly doesn’t want any more “West Coast” schools going to the Big Ten. And Stanford may not want to join us.
I hear Texas A&M “reportedly” did not want Texas in the SEC. USC is hardly in a position to tell the Big Ten what to do.
LikeLike
What is coming out of Boulder? Only thing I heard was 4 schools contacted the B12 about admission. If they were so unhappy, wouldn’t we have heard more or at least some of their wishes? They left a better B12 than if they were to return.
LikeLike
Brian: “What is coming out of Boulder?”
Colorado has had an online petition to join the Big Ten before USC/UCLA bolted.
https://www.change.org/p/b1g-conference-university-of-colorado-should-switch-to-the-big-10-conference
Also several newspaper articles like the one below. This, again, was before USC/UCLA bolted.
LikeLike
Every PAC team that does not have a shot at getting into the B1G should have a plan B. In order, I think all 4 of the schools meeting with the B12 would like to:
1) Join the B1G (but most know this is unrealistic)
2) Stay in the PAC with the current 10 members
3) Move to B12 if a further B1G raid takes OU/UW.
The B12 is worse than when CO left but better than the PAC less USC/UCLA/OU/WU. As long as OU/WU stay in the PAC CO will be better off where it is at.
LikeLike
I think they’re going to break away from the NCAA. And if that’s the case are 18,20, or 24 schools enough?
LikeLike
ND will not join any conference anytime soon. The ACC is in survival mode and will never bend in using its Grant of Rights legal & financial leverage to prevent any of its schools from leaving. And no P5 conference is going to expel members (a la Big East/Temple).
While there’s much $ to be had, it takes time for conferences to crunch numbers and absorb expansion impacts. The Big XII and PAC-12 schools are the only ones in play, and none of these move the needle for the SEC.
However the constant travel between LA and the East Coast for non-football athletes is not sustainable for the Big 10. The Big 10 will not sit idle for long. Look for:
West Pod: USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona (already in for hockey)
Mid-West Pod: WI, NE, MN, IA, and KS
Central Pod: MI, MSU, NW, Purdue, IL
East Pod: OSU, PSU, Indiana, UMD, Rutgers
LikeLike
Those pods are terrible. Kansas and Arizona are not getting in.
LikeLike
Ex-Fox Sports exec on PAC’s future and puts Oregon and Washington’s value at $60 million a year.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gut-punch-comes-with?sd=pf
This guy knows significantly more than I do, but I found it strange he didn’t include Portland in his estimate of UO and UW’s value. I would think the value to the Big Ten (games vs the USC/UCLA and the top of the Big Ten) would be more.
LikeLike
Pretty certain he did add Portland.
Portland’s not exactly a big market.
LikeLike
This is the best article I’ve seen yet to understand this:
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gut-punch-comes-with?sd=pf
“Thompson said the Big Ten’s decision to add two Los Angeles-based universities was rooted in a simple math equation. The 14 existing conference members know they’ll receive approximately $71.4 million per university under the new Fox deal. Adding two more partners only made sense if they could generate a minimum of $143 million in additional distributable revenue.”
So that’s where we’re at. A school needs to be worth $70M+ Per year in tv revenue to be worth adding.
There are only a handful of schools out there that can do that at this point.
Hardly any really.
The Big Ten and SEC may add a few more each but there simply aren’t enough valuable schools out there for either of them to get to 20.
There are a variety of possibilities, but my best guess is
Big Ten adds USC, UCLA, Stanford, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington
SEC adds Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Clemson
We’ll see.
LikeLike
Based on the article’s numbers it is now $75M after USC/UCLA ($1B + $200M)/16. Almost all of the schools being mentioned other than ND will not be worth that much.
LikeLike
I am not sure those numbers are accurate anymore. When you eliminate the competition you will increase the value of the rights that are available. If a media company wants CFB tv rights it’s really now or in another decade.
I also think you can’t look at incremental value by school. The more schools the more inventory and that opens up opportunities for additional media companies and TV windows.
There is so much value in consolidating rights holders. Additionally, there is more money to go around to the top schools since the the reduced brands will not have much leverage and will see lower payouts collectively.
LikeLike
Right, but it isn’t endless. They can probably add a few more, but there’s a limit. Seems like over 20 is unlikely.
LikeLike
I think the question now is what is the over/under on how long before Notre Dame joins the Big 10. I’ve never seen such a flip as the diehard pro independence and anti-Big 10 ND fans to being, at the very least, accepting of joining the Big 10.
I don’t think it will happen next week, but I don’t expect that the Big 10 will have to wait until December for their Irish Christmas gift.
LikeLike
You are now seeing prominent ND alumni saying they should join the Big Ten. It might not be a majority of them yet, but it used to be zero.
LikeLike
For me the question is this. Will Notre Dame leadership wait to see what amateurism looks like after the next cases and incoming Division I restructure.
I struggle with the idea that schools like Notre Dame and Stanford would ever have employees who play football.
LikeLike
This is a very important point, and it illustrates why I believe ND won’t join the B1G without Stanford.
LikeLike
Bullet: “I’ve never seen such a flip as the diehard pro independence and anti-Big 10 ND fans to being, at the very least, accepting of joining the Big 10.”
I agree. It’s a sea change from 1999. Back then there were “NO BIG TEN” banners on the ND campus and the Irish were SCREAMING about staying independent at all costs. Seems like if the answer was “No thanks” again that they would have said it by now.
LikeLike
How long did the 1999 ND overture last, maybe a month? Seems like this one could last another month unless the talks have already been ongoing with the LA talks.
LikeLike
Agreed, the number of Notre Dame alums/fans making the argument that: “independent was a means to an end” and
‘If the “end of independence” means joining a national conference that offers games across the country, then it’s very different from joining the 11 team Big Ten in 1999 which ND rejected a regional conference that only covered Pennsylvania to Iowa.’
I have no idea if that means anything, but ND decision makers are probably seriously considering what a 20-24 team Big Ten looks like with ND in it.
LikeLike
There are several comments here about the ACC Grant of Rights. IMO, there is an overarching misunderstanding — not just here, but in sports media in general — about the purpose of the GOR. The GOR is not intended to make sure that the remaining ACC members get penalty money from departing members. Rather, it is insurance in favor of ESPN, the party with whom the ACC has contracted. ESPN needed assurance when it agreed to pay the ACC hundreds of millions a year what exactly ESPN was going to be paying for. So the interested party in the GOR isn’t the fellow members of the ACC, it’s ESPN. If you read the GOR, it makes this purpose very clear.
So the bottom line is that the GOR will be enforced exactly as long as ESPN wants it enforced, but no further. When ESPN decides that it makes sense for them to have, inter alia, Clemson/FSU/Miami, go to the SEC and/or facilitate a CFP expansion, then it will happen. And ESPN will likely buy off the remaining ACC schools, either consistent with whatever the ESPN/ACC media rights agreement allows or by a negotiated settlement.
LikeLike
That would seem to mean ACC teams would have. Much easier time going to the SEC than the Big Ten.
LikeLike
That would seem to mean it’s easier for an ACC team to join the SEC than the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The TLDR explanation I give for Grant of Rights is it exists to try to insure the conference is paid it’s guaranteed sum from TV through the end of the contract.
The average school in a conference might be worth $50 million per year but Enormous State University may be worth $80 million in a different conference.
The TV rights holder still gets to show the home games of the school for life of the contract which protects ESPN if an ACC goes B1G and protects ACC.
Not sure how the message board crowd concluded it was like garlic and holy water staving off vampires.
LikeLike
Not sure how the message board crowd concluded it was like garlic and holy water staving off vampires.
Not sure which message board said that, but the fact is no conference Grant of Rights has ever been broken yet, despite message board participants insisting (for years) it was sure to happen.
A Grant of Rights is like any deal—breakable at the right price. But so far that price has been so high that nobody has done it.
LikeLike
Has Kevin Warren contacted the University of Texas yet? If not, why not? I understand that they are looking for a conference home beginning in the 2025 season. It seems that they have had talks with the SEC, but of course they are still members of the Big XII at present and for the next three years. . . .
LikeLike
Texas made their decision.
I don’t see how or why they change it.
Their fans/alums lean SEC. There’d probably be riots if they changed their minds now.
ND and Texas are different. Texas culturally was always a better fit in the SEC.
ND wants the national schedule and their rivals are mostly going to be in the Big Ten.
Texas fits with A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, LSU etc.
LikeLike
As a Texas resident, I’ll respectfully disagree with your characterization of Texas. I agree that A&M is a much better cultural fit, a great fit in fact, for the SEC. But UT-Austin is way, way different. Believe me, in their heart of hearts UT-Austin thinks it is much too good for the SEC, and is a far better cultural fit in the B1G. I don’t think the UT ship has sailed, because it never got out of the harbor. There was NO way the B1G would have taken OU, and I’m guessing that there was no thought of taking UT as a one-off in either direction. Well, now circumstances have changed.
Finally, an added bonus is that Stanford and UT-Austin would absolutely lock in ND. I think ND will come with just Stanford, but UT-Austin would be significant additional comfort. Bottom line is that I can think of a single reason why Warren wouldn’t run this option to ground.
LikeLike
“can’t” think of a single reason. . .
LikeLike
Yeah but tell me about the older alums/old money at Texas.
Those people want SEC.
They feel they have to be in the SEC for Texas to stay ahead of A&M as well.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten is as desirable to southern schools as many on here seem to think. With Missouri, for instance, there’s a contingent that would be up for the Big Ten, but the majority are strongly in favor of the SEC. I suspect Texas is the same way, and I also suspect it’s true for most if not all of the southern ACC schools. The SEC has a lot of pull in the south.
LikeLike
I tend to agree, and I don’t think Clemson/FSU are that realistic for the Big Ten because of that.
I mean, I’d love to have FSU as a Big Ten school, but it’s just not that realistic given their fans/alums want to be in the SEC.
Ditto Clemson.
I think UNC is probably the most interesting case; I’d venture some contingent of fans leans Big Ten, some contingent leans SEC.
UNC maybe the most mixed on a decision like this.
LikeLike
UNC is probably like Missouri, with a mix. They would be persuadable. But probably a large chunk of them would prefer SEC just like Mizzou. With Mizzou some in St. Louis and Columbia preferred Big Ten but most of the rest of the state were pro-SEC, and that’s only grown over time. Now it’s probably 80 to 90% pro SEC.
LikeLike
So true. If the B1G scores ND and Stanford to go along with USC, the UT President/faculty, if not those who pull the strings down there, are going to be beside themselves. They view those schools as their academic peers and I have no doubt more than a few have wondered “Is it too late?” Unfortunately, the old guard and student body are full steam ahead with the SEC. Still, it wouldn’t hurt to make the call.
LikeLike
Stanford and UT-Austin would absolutely lock in ND.
If I had a dollar for every time someone said X would lock in ND, I could take my family out to a very nice dinner.
I can’t think of a single reason why Warren wouldn’t run this option to ground.
Since talk is cheap, I see no reason not to ask. I expect a hard no.
LikeLike
Full disclosure, I’m a 2x ND alum and have been for a few decades now, so I think I have a decent feel for the ND zeitgeist. I think we’ve reached capitulation on the independence issue. IMO, here are the 3 critical motivations concerning whether to join a conference: 1) Academic fit, which is why I’m convinced Stanford is a critical piece. Like it or not (and some of my fellow alumni don’t), ND’s true aspirational peer (again, IMO) is Stanford. Fr. Hesburgh used to talk about the Ivy League — Princeton in particular — but I think those days are gone. Jack Swarbrick’s law degree is from Stanford. As goes Stanford, so will go ND. 2) National schedule. The West Coast expansion obviously helps this a lot. Picking up a school in Texas would IMO seal it, but probably isn’t necessary. 3) Ability to influence the direction of college football. I do not believe ND will participate in an employee/non-student model of athletics, but they obviously very much want to keep playing football. So they will do whatever they think is the best course of action to influence that outcome, and I think belonging to the B1G is much more useful to that end than continuing to be a voice of 1. That’s another reason why I think the Stanford piece is vital, because Stanford is even moreso of the same mindset.
LikeLike
One other smaller point — Kevin Warren is an ND Law grad and was an adjunct at the Law School when I was a student. Candidly, I will be interested one day to read the unabridged story of how he fell into becoming the Big Ten commissioner, because that came as something of a shock to me, which I’ll just leave right there. But the point is, he’s got legitimate ties to ND.
LikeLike
The growing consensus on the largest ND forums seems to be ‘Get in now and have influence over the process”. Whereas holding onto Independence until they are forced to relinquish it (when they can no longer field a traditional 12 game ND schedule) was the worst strategy. Anecdotal, but fascinating to watch the seismic change in attitude concerning joining the B1G. I also believe Stanford’s admission is a major consideration and justification (in their minds) for joining sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
I’ll ask the question yet again: Does Stanford want to join the Big Ten?
LikeLike
That depends on whether they want their sports to have national media exposure and continue to compete for national titles. They are the Michael Jordan of Olympic sports, and despite what some people think, they is a very important part of their legacy. Do they need the money? No. Is it a burden on their athletes? Yes. Clearly the preferred scenario is to have the B1G invite a West Coast pod of five or six teams. Even with the incredible value of a Stanford education, their recruiting of national caliber athletes will suffer if they have no media exposure. I believe, despite some serious misgivings, they will leap at the chance to go to B1G with ND as their partner. We’ll see.
LikeLike
*THAT is a very important part of their identity/legacy. -Yikes, some typos are more jarring than others!
LikeLike
The growing consensus on the largest ND forums seems to be ‘Get in now and have influence over the process”.
That’s highly significant, because the forums tend to be dominated by the most emotional and least rational of a team’s supporters. If even they are ready to join the Big Ten, it tells you how much the world has changed.
LikeLike
Is there any anecdotal evidence the B10 wants Stanford or that Stanford is a take? The Olympic sports package is top notch, too academics, big research, etc. what do they deliver on media, market share, alumni size, etc?
LikeLike
It’s funny, I was thinking about this same thing earlier this evening and was about to pose the same question.
I’d be shocked if UT actually accepted, but the Big Ten is suddenly more appealing than it was a year ago and the worst thing the Longhorns could say is no.
Personally, I think the Big Ten should call UT and Oklahoma. I know OU’s academics are not exactly up to Big Ten standards, but that academics have been steadily declining in importance in realignment decisions (otherwise Louisville never would have gotten an ACC invite over UConn and Texas would not have dropped their 30 aversion to joining the SEC).
The travel for UT and OU wouldn’t be that much worse (especially if the Big Ten indicated they would be willing to add Kansas and Colorado if necessary), it would be an significant academic upgrade (to the extent it matters) and offer an easier path to the nation championship most years (not to mention the recruiting is not as ruthless). Toss in the chance to play a more “national” conference schedule (again for what it is worth) and you have a decent sales pitch.
LikeLike
Well, no major disrespect intended, but the ACC isn’t the B10. . .
LikeLike
My initial reaction to the idea that the B1G should reach out to Texas was, “Go on to hell, honey, I’m headed home.” [Turnpike Troubadours…admittedly, from the wrong side of the Red River (Tahlequah, Oklahoma)] Upon reflection, Kevin Warren isn’t doing his job if he doesn’t reach out to UT and ask if they’d rather join a coast-to-coast conference, along with Notre Dame and USC, or slink behind A&M, to a regional confederacy, with lesser academics. Then, call Swarbick immediately thereafter, and ask if he’d be interested in joining an 18-team B1G, if Texas is Notre Dame’s “plus-one.” Heck, let ’em both bring a partner of their choosing, even if it’s Oklahoma and Stanford.
LikeLike
Newsflash or probably a blip.
Arizona 247Sports site says Arizona is meeting this week with Big XII. Doesn’t name names but says four schools are looking at joining Big XII. My assumption is Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado because article says Arizona doesn’t think Washington and Oregon departure is imminent but probably an eventuality.
LikeLike
A USC insider is saying Stanford and Notre Dame to the Big Ten this week. If Washington and Oregon are inevitable, and Arizona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah join the Big 12, then that would just leave Cal, Washington State and Oregon State. I wonder where they would go?
LikeLike
You start inviting MWC schools. You see if someone somewhat respectable like Cal Davis wants to move up. You debate whether you want to make a run at Texas AAC schools.
LikeLike
Boise State might be a scratch if Cal and the PNW flagships are calling the shots:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/idaho-republicans-attacks-boise-state-100000456.html
LikeLike
The Big XII just expanded with schools it previously rejected. Losing your two most valuable members changes your perspective.
LikeLike
P10 expansion is either unreasonable or a front to buy time for members find a new home. Hard to imagine Ducks, UA, UW, even Utah staying in a P12 with SDSU & Boise St when there is so much $ in the B2 or at least a tier 2 ACC or B12.
LikeLike
The PAC can look at candidates, but someone is going to say “show me the money.” Will SDSU or any other candidate increase the per school payout of the 10 remaining PAC members? The PAC payout will not offset the exit fees from either the B12 or ACC (even if GoR was not an issue).so raiding those conferences is not a viable strategy.
LikeLike
If there are 10 remaining members then waiting is perfectly good strategy.
If Stanford thing is real? Nine isn’t as easy of a call because in addition to being a vulnerable number, it means everyone needs another non-conference game soon.
If Oregon Washington has legs then 8 is an awful number but survivable.
If the Big XII raid is real and happens, six sucks it makes a MWC or FCS raid unavoidable.
Starting adding combos of those and it’s really bad.
Let’s say all the disasters befall PAC. If I’m president at SDSU or UNLV or Nevada etc., do I want Washington State, Oregon State and Cal to join MWC or do I want to join PAC and rebrand as a member of the new PAC-10 or PAC-12?
If I do so programs I’ve felt weren’t pulling their weight in MWC can be discarded.
I expect PAC will live. If they can retain what they have for a few years they can be snugly in that third tier with Big XII. If not they will be in that fourth tier of AAC and Sun Belt and we will be talking about that key Boise SDSU PAC-12 matchup.
LikeLike
WSU and OrSU go to a now 18-member Big 12.
Cal becomes the B1G’s 20th or 21st member (depending on what Notre Dame does), with the conference filling out to 24 when ACC members become available.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced the B12 would want WSU and OrSU. They might have to go to the MWC. They are small markets with no brands, and WSU is hard to travel to. What’s the upside? UA, ASU, UU and CU make a lot more sense for the B12.
LikeLike
The fact that OrSt and WSU are not having discussions with the B12 (like CU, UU, ASU, UA) is a tell on their prospect of getting a B12 invite (none). They will land in the MWC if the PAC implodes.
LikeLike
The triple option of Cal, OSU, WSU would go to their sports brethren B12 or MWC.
LikeLike
Feels as if Big Ten has told Oregon/Washington to just stay silent/patient and not do anything until ND tells the Big Ten what they’re doing.
Especially if Oregon/Washington aren’t looking around at all.
LikeLike
Loose lips sink ships. According to reports, the only thing they were told was, “We are not expanding any further at this time.” Why would you tell them a jot more?
LikeLike
Because you have to basically be negotiating these things in the background for months before signing the contract.
Maybe only the President and AD at the university know what’s going on… rest of the people are being told that.
The Big Ten needs to finalize its TV deal in the next 2-3 months. It has to know its membership in the next few weeks to do so.
I think they already know whether Washington/Oregon will be a part of the Big Ten (I think they will be for inventory/markets/brand reasons and to secure the West coast).
Washington/Oregon are likely to have scaled buy ins (i.e. ramp up to full payouts like MD/Rutgers/etc.), that stuff has to be negotiated in advance.
LikeLike
Because you have to basically be negotiating these things in the background for months before signing the contract.
No you don’t. Washington and Oregon have no good options. When and if the Big Ten calls, they will take what is offered.
Similarly, the Big Ten negotiated with Maryland for months—but not with Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights were simply informed what they would be getting, because any imaginable deal was going to be far better than what they had.
Washington and Oregon are not quite as hapless as Rutgers was, or is, but they were already way behind financially even before last week’s news, and it will only be worse if they don’t get a lifeline.
The Big Ten needs to finalize its TV deal in the next 2-3 months. It has to know its membership in the next few weeks to do so.
That is not true either. These deals always have look-in clauses that allow them to be renegotiated if conference composition changes.
LikeLike
They do, but the Big Ten is basically trying to figure out who’s going to be involved and whether to give portions to others.
You have to know inventory numbers to do that.
Big Ten is not likely to finalize TV deals (especially if they include 3 or 4 partners) until the number is set.
I mean yeah there’s always the possibility of another short 6 year deal I guess, but I’d imagine the next deal is around 8 years.
LikeLike
With regard to your second paragraph, it’s doubtful that ADs are in on the discussions since conference realignment typically involves Presidents making decisions and then telling ADs “Here make it work”
LikeLike
Ducks & Dubs are probably working at least 3 plans: B10 app, SEC app, and maybe a B12 or ACC merger. Exciting times.
LikeLike
Arizona 247Sports site says Arizona is meeting this week with Big XII.
Over the years, for every 10 such rumors published, maybe one is true. However, if you are a Pac-12 school why wouldn’t you have this conversation? It makes complete sense.
If the Big XII adds Arizona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah, it is likely a more valuable property than the rump Pac-10. Plus, in the Pac-10 you would always be wondering when the next schools will leave.
LikeLike
Not one of the P10 schools has refuted any of the “contacting other schools” rumors. Typically they don’t comment on rumors yet this is so momentous, comments would be appropriate. Both the B10, USC, UCLA never commented until after the schools were accepted. So it seems highly likely there are intense discussions going on this week.
LikeLike
“If the Big XII adds Arizona, ASU, Colorado, and Utah, it is likely a more valuable property than the rump Pac-10. ”
If the remaining 10 schools stayed together, I think they would be worth more per school than the 16 member Big 12. But they would all be on edge that Washington and Oregon could leave at a moments notice. The Big 12 seems like it will be stable long term (even if it eventually loses some members after the ACC inevitably gets some schools picked off). There are also natural and historic rivalries for each school (BYU for Utah, TT for the Arizona Schools, original Big 8 schools for Colorado), and high-level basketball.
So it makes seems inevitable.
LikeLike
Given that 1) ND is obligated to play an average of 5 ACC opponents per year; 2) ND wants to play both Stanford and USC every year while concluding every (regular) season in California; 3) they generally play 1 or 2 B1G teams each year.
This works out to 8.5 games per year; functionally little different from a 9 game B1G schedule (were Stanford also admitted as a member).
Consider: Pittsburgh excepted all ACC schools are located outside the (current) B1G footprint. By joining the B1G 2 or 3 games per year in the NE/SW would (essentially) be replaced by games in the Midwest. Certainly games against Illinois/Iowa/Wisconsin will garner substantially better ratings than games against Wake Forest/Duke/Virginia.
Perhaps trading visits to/from Wake Forest, Duke, NC State and the like with Iowa, Rutgers, Maryland et all more than compensates for the loss of games in Florida/Boston/North Carolina? Perhaps a change in ND’s discretionary scheduling could help compensate for fewer (regularly scheduled) games in Florida and the NE?
I know independence is about more than just football and scheduling… Given the payout and guaranteed access to any future national championship arrangement with the SEC perhaps there calculus has changed… maybe an end to independence becomes at least palatable (to most ND constituencies) even if not generally preferred?
LikeLike
Yes, this is basically correct. Contingent on Stanford joining and the Big Ten remaining at 9 games, ND could keep its annual series with Navy and have two games left over to play whomever they want.
Now, in most years ND has two “buy games” on their schedule. If they stick to that, they would sacrifice some flexibility by joining a conference. Still, I can think of somewhere between 80 and 100 million reasons per year why they might do that.
LikeLike
Do we know how the ACC GOR impacts Notre Dame? I mean, surely they would have less of a penalty to pay to return those rights since they do not include football. I know there has been comments about how the GOR locks in schools to the ACC for years, but does that realistically apply to ND as well?
LikeLike
There was an article about this within the last few days. Consensus seems to be that the penalty is manageable, since the grant includes only the Olympic sports. The article said ND would make it back within two years. It did not cite a school source, so you don’t know how accurate it is.
No source has suggested that there is any severe financial obstacle to ND joining the B10, so I suspect that article is at least directionally correct.
LikeLike
Mike Berardino of the South Bend Sentinel writes that the ESPN contract with the ACC includes a clause that if Notre Dame were to join any conference in football before 2036, it is contractually obligated to join the ACC. The exit fee to get out of that contract is substantial.
LikeLike
RE: ACC/Grant of Rights (GoR), Andy Staples’ July 1 article in The Athletic covers it well (note, there’s a pay wall). BLUF: There’s a reason why schools are timing their departures at the end of their GoR.
Breaking the contract with a conference is one thing and clearly can be negotiated. The exit fee for ACC is 3x ACC’s annual operating expenses. For UMD in 2014, that was $51M; ACC/UMD settled at $31M. Eight years later with ACC Network operating expenses now included, that amount figures to be much higher.
The real jeopardy lies in the GoR that has never been challenged in court. UMD had no GoR to contend with. TX, OK, USC, and UCLA are avoiding it like Typhoid Mary.
“So if a school wanted to challenge a grant of rights, it likely would assume considerable financial risk… For an ACC school that tried and failed, the forfeited TV revenue would run into the hundreds of millions…”
Further, “lawyers will spend months arguing about what court you’re going to be in and — even when you’re in the court — what law applies.” Can a GoR be challenged? Sure, but it’ll cost ya… bigly. That reality seems to be (dare I say) cavalierly dismissed by most folks predicting the end of the ACC.
So to revisit an analogy mentioned above, it’s not that the GoR acts as holy water and garlic to keep the vampires away (LOL). It’s the reverse: Challenging the GoR unleashes the vampires themselves – hordes of lawyers (on both sides) who will suck the finances and living energy away from any desired conference exit… indefinitely.
ACC schools making googly eyes to the Big 10 or SEC (and vice versus) have no ability to say when they’re free to enter that conference, nor how much it will cost. University presidents worry about the bottom line as well as reputations. So they’ll wait. Until the ACC is dissolved (which won’t happen), ND or other schools join, or until the 2030s, nothing changes for the ACC membership.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. That is an excellent summary and tracks other well-informed articles I have seen in the past. Probably the biggest tell is that Texas and Oklahoma have delayed their Big XII exit until after the GoR expires. If those enormous programs cannot stomach the cost of leaving earlier, then why would one think UNC and Duke can?
Someone commented above, “So the interested party in the GOR isn’t the fellow members of the ACC, it’s ESPN. If you read the GOR, it makes this purpose very clear.” This seems to me spectacularly ill-informed. If ESPN could just buy out a GOR anytime it wants, why has it not bought out Texas and Oklahoma?
I mean…sure, there is some imaginable price where they could do it, but we are talking about such a huge (and uncertain) number that no one seems to be even considering it.
LikeLike
Because the current Big XII media rights deal is with both ESPN and Fox, so ESPN can’t do it unilaterally. Fox has a say.
Read the ACC GOR for yourself. https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/2022/07/01185531/ACC-Grant-of-Rights-1.pdf. Now tell me what the express purpose of the GOR is and who the protected party in the agreement is.
LikeLike
The protected parties are both ESPN and the member schools. Since you obviously “get” why ESPN would want this deal, let me explain the other half.
Clemson relinquishes its right to jump to the SEC whenever it wants. But in exchange, it gets the assurance that UNC can’t jump to the Big Ten either—or if it does, the costs to UNC or any other school would be in the stratosphere. Thus, for the term of the agreement every school knows it will be in a stable conference that can grow but cannot shrink.
I mean…if the schools were not getting something good out of it, then why did they sign?
LikeLike
The “good” they are getting is the money from ESPN. Let me explain it a different way, which perhaps you’ll understand. Neither Clemson nor UNC cares if the other jumps to the SEC so long as the non-jumping party gets paid by ESPN in full for the duration of the ACC’s agreement with ESPN. That is the entirety of what each school has bargained for. Anything beyond that is simply a gratuitous “penalty,” which the law typically will not enforce. In turn, ESPN very much cares if either school jumps because then it can’t get what it bargained for, the rights to broadcast the jumping school’s games, hence the GOR. Ergo, the GOR is only as enforceable as ESPN chooses for it to be; and so long as ESPN is willing to pay to the ACC what it owes, then the other schools have no claim against one another.
What we don’t know (at least what I don’t know) is what the agreement between ESPN and the ACC itself says in terms of breach, etc. In any event, though, the bottom line is that ESPN holds the cards here, and when it’s ready to broker a break-up of the ACC, it will happen.
LikeLike
That is a very interesting theory, but the very first “Whereas” clause of the grant is very explicit about the benefits that the member schools are getting. Very peculiar to write that if the conference members were not the primary beneficiaries.
Notice that the benefits it mentions are not strictly financial. It mentions “stability” and “commitment.” In other words, the departure of any member injures the others in ways beyond just money.
Now, as I said upthread, there is always a price at which a deal could be broken. In this case, ESPN would need to pay for the departing members’ games twice. Clemson isn’t going to leave the ACC and not get paid for its games. But the ACC won’t let Clemson off the hook without getting paid for those same games.
If those games are valuable enough that ESPN would for them twice, then you are correct. I am a bit skeptical of that. Clemson and FSU are worth having, but not to that extent.
LikeLike
The Athletic (including their podcasts) has been great on this story. As for the GOR, that’s true, but if five teams get poached in a single strike (unlike the drip, drip of the Big12), and Wake, etc jump to the Big East it certainly muddies the contractual waters. ESPN has so much leverage over the viability of the conference, their wishes will probably win the day. Do they renegotiate with the ACC? Doubtful. Does Clemson, FSU and UNC accept their meager payouts for another decade? Not happening. ESPN holds the cards and is in a strong negotiating position with the conference. Watching Fox form a super conference while they sit on their hands is not a option. The dam breaks within two years, no matter what. Does anyone disagree? (That’s my contrarian siren call to the regulars) It’s only a matter of time before “Damn right FSU and Clemson will accept their gruel. They have no choice!!” 3…2…1…😂)
LikeLike
What exactly do you think will happen? You can read the grant of rights for yourself, as a version of it is online. The costs of breaking it 14 years early are enormous. If it is “doubtful” that ESPN will offer to pay more, then what options do the schools have?
LikeLike
Swarbrick has to know the ACC is living on borrowed time. Heck the CFP and the whole bowl/postseason system is.
‘“We’re going to have these two conferences that have so distanced themselves from anyone else financially,” Swarbrick said. “That’s where I see it starting to break down. There are so many schools trying to get out of their current conference, and they can’t get there.”
Asked which schools could be looking to move, Swarbrick answered, “None that I’d share.”’
When you already had rumblings last year of the SEC making their own postseason.
And the Big Ten obviously can once it gets to 18-20 (with or without ND), there’s just no way that independence is viable in the long run.
If the Big Ten creates an 8 team playoff that ends at the Rose Bowl. i.e. Quarterfinals (round of 8) and Semifinal (round of 4) in early December and then “Big Ten Championship at the Rose Bowl”, the SEC can do the same thing with the Sugar Bowl.
And then stage a +1 championship the following week.
It’s always possible that ND ends up deciding they’ll be the last one to move, but it just no longer seems as if independence will work if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to control the postseason and keep the money from it…
LikeLike
The only real question is not where this is going, but how long ND feels it can afford to wait.
LikeLike
What’s the upside for ND in waiting? It seems like B1G soon or independent for good. Am I missing something?
LikeLike
There’s not really an upside beyond just not angering fans that are married to the idea of independence.
Everything favors getting in now and helping to shape the future of the Big Ten (and postseason).
Swarbrick has been around long enough to know that the Big Ten and SEC are going for 20-24 each and at that point they can create their own postseason.
He knows that the Big Ten is likely to become a true national conference that offers ND a national schedule (unlike the 11 team Big Ten that they rejected in 1999).
He and the ND leadership are probably able to realize that they will eventually be in the Big Ten…
LikeLike
I think this is the correct answer.
(Reposted from above)–
Full disclosure, I’m a 2x ND alum and have been for a few decades now, so I think I have a decent feel for the ND zeitgeist. I think we’ve reached capitulation on the independence issue. IMO, here are the 3 critical motivations concerning whether to join a conference: 1) Academic fit, which is why I’m convinced Stanford is a critical piece. Like it or not (and some of my fellow alumni don’t), ND’s true aspirational peer (again, IMO) is Stanford. Fr. Hesburgh used to talk about the Ivy League — Princeton in particular — but I think those days are gone. Jack Swarbrick’s law degree is from Stanford. As goes Stanford, so will go ND. 2) National schedule. The West Coast expansion obviously helps this a lot. Picking up a school in Texas would IMO seal it, but probably isn’t necessary. 3) Ability to influence the direction of college football. I do not believe ND will participate in an employee/non-student model of athletics, but they obviously very much want to keep playing football. So they will do whatever they think is the best course of action to influence that outcome, and I think belonging to the B1G is much more useful to that end than continuing to be a voice of 1. That’s another reason why I think the Stanford piece is vital, because Stanford is even moreso of the same mindset.
LikeLike
It seems like we are nearing the End Game of college sports realignment. Which of the following two scenarios are more likely:
1) The rest of the moves are incremental and messy as history suggests (e.g., a few more PAC schools to the B1G, PAC and B12 shuffle membership, a few ACC schools to SEC and/or B1G (after GOR expiry), the remaining teams reorg what’s left, most CFB teams play 8 or 9 conference games, big bowls remain, and playoffs expand).
2) B1G and SEC grab the few remaining big brands, move to 10 conference games. break away from NCAA, and host their own CFB championship.
Two years ago I would have said option 1 in a landslide. This week I’m not so sure.
LikeLike
It’s going to be a quasi-breakaway I think but it will probably be dramatic in terms of postseason football/basketball changes moreso than current NCAA structure.
I don’t see an NCAA breakup; I just see the Big Ten and SEC demanding a lot more power/money from the basketball tournament (i.e. less AQ bids forcing a lot of the smaller D1-3 conferences to consolidate) and then just separating football away in a separate Power 2 + others division where they can set rules on scholarship #s, pay for players, NIL, postseason tournaments/cfp.
LikeLike
The Big Ten and SEC can basically force the NCAA to restructure in the vision that they wish.
They have that power now (and that power will grow as they take more from the ACC/Pac-12).
The key things are changes to the NCAA Tournament and true autonomy. Both can be obtainable while keeping the NCAA.
LikeLike
The B1G/SEC are building power football conferences, not basketball. The last B1G NCAA basketball tournament winner was MSU in 2000. Last time one of the 16 (or 20 if you want to include ND, OR, WA, and Stanford) won was 2002 when Maryland was in the ACC. UCLA has the most titles, but no PAC team has won in the last 45 years. The conferences that have won are the ACC, Big East, B12, and SEC (last 2012). The NCAA and these conferences are not going to let the B1G dictate the Basketball championship.
The NCAA does not run FBS football or its playoffs.
LikeLike
The smaller conferences won’t have a choice.
It’s already become very contentious over the past 10 years that every conference gets an AQ.
That heavily disfavors the large power conferences whose mid-ranked teams are fighting for fewer tournament spots.
SEC in the past has pushed for a reduction in AQs.
Big Ten will support it.
LikeLike
People seem to think that G5 and P5 are at utterly different ends of the spectrum and that is far from the truth.
With FBS requiring 16 sports and 200 scholarships there has been a growing discontent among the G5 that they are on the recruiting trail in sports other than football and contending with a swarm of schools that may only sponsor 14 sports and maybe 80 scholarships who are also contending for an AQ spot in the NCAA’s championship.
It’s not the G5 where people complain of 15 hour bus trips, leaking ceilings in weight rooms, mold in player facilities, practices without adequate sports medicine oversight.
That was a large factor in Sun Belt encouraging Arkansas-Little Rock and Texas-Arlington to seek other affiliation.
The rumor has been around since the NCAA started its committee meetings on Division I that the membership standards would be on the table and at a minimum all Division I would have to offer 16 sports and instead of 50% of the maximum for their sports something more like 75%-85%.
Recently Matt Brown has reported there is support to increase Division I standards to somewhere in the 18-21 sport range, with higher scholarship limits and minimum ratios of coaches, trainers, academic support people to athletes.
All stuff I’d previously heard independently from people around Arkansas State.
G5 and P5 are on the same page about redefining what it means to be Division I. Both believe it means having a big athletic department that provides ample support to athletes.
We are headed back to the past. Football didn’t have a national scholarship limit until 50 years ago. Go further back the role of the NCAA was primarily to make sure everyone played the sport using the same rule book and pretty much everything else was a conference issue at a time when conferences larger than 20 weren’t uncommon.
LikeLike
“I don’t see an NCAA breakup; I just see the Big Ten and SEC demanding a lot more power/money from the basketball tournament (i.e. less AQ bids forcing a lot of the smaller D1-3 conferences to consolidate) ”
I don’t think they’ll ask for less AQ bids (which would be unpopular)…
An idea of what they might do:
Increase the tournament to 256 teams, with the 256 teams determined by the same number of auto bids they have now, plus a computer formula which heavily favors strengths of wins, assuring that essentially all power conference teams get in (they would still be less than half the initial field of 256!). Have the top 64 teams each host 3 other teams the first weekend (again determined by computers, balancing the rankings while preventing multiple teams from the same conference getting sent to the same host). Your 1st weekend of the tournament is true madness: 128 games in the first round, 64 games in the 2nd! Your networks can be jumping around from game to game while online you can watch every game.
Then, the 64 teams that get through the 1st weekend can be re-seeded by a traditional selection committee, and people can make out their normal 64 team brackets. The power conferences will say that games played the 1st weekend are for 1/4 shares of the later games.
No conference can say they’re not given a shot with this set-up; nearly every conference will have multiple teams selected, and even middling mid-major conferences will have most teams selected. But obviously teams with losing records from power conferences will end up defeating many small-conference schools with auto-bids, giving the power conferences more teams by the time they’re down to 64.
LikeLike
https://swimswam.com/the-olympic-channel-will-shut-down-in-september-2022/
NBC just announced they are shutting down the Olympic Channel at the end of September. This will be the second year in a row that NBC has pulled the plug on one of its sports networks (NBC Sports shut down last year).
LikeLike
NBC Olympic the content had far more value to Peacock than its small and shrinking cable distribution.
NBCSports largely was about rebuilding USA to be similar to TBS/TNT and ditch some low ROI content.
LikeLike
I really don’t think the B10 should take Oregon. They are essentially OK St., and like Boone Pickens, I don’t believe Phil Knight will live forever.
While AAU, the Ducks don’t bring a metro with B10 alums, a populous state, recruiting grounds or academic prestige. Only flashy uniforms.
So yes, wait for ND. If they want Stanford to come along, that’s great.
Otherwise (or actually, in any case), bring in UWashington and Cal. They check the box on everything (well, other than Cal currently being good at football, but that wasn’t a reason to reject RU and UMD and it won’t be a reason to reject Cal). Cal’s one of the top unis in the world and the NoCal has tons of B10 alums, good recruiting grounds, and (importantly, like SoCal), way more students who would be willing to pay OOS prices for a good B10 school if they can’t get in to a desired UC.
So I wouldn’t even wait for ND. Add UW and Cal to get to 18. If ND wants to join, ND and Stanford to get to 20.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oregon’s been in 2 national championship games in recent memory won the Pac-12 a bunch of times, been in a bunch of major bowl games.
They’ve built themselves into one of the 20-25 most attractive TV properties in cfb probably. TV ratings bear it out…
Oklahoma State is a flimsy comparison.
The reason for bringing in Washington/Oregon would be to protect the Western flank in the event that USC/UCLA ever go through down periods (which is always possible or likely).
You don’t want the entire West Coast part of the Big Ten to be dead if USC/UCLA are in slumps; which is why it seems pretty reasonable to add Washington/Oregon. Another large market in Washington, consolidation of top 4 brands in the West (USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington) and 4 schools that can legitimately punch at the Wisconsin level or above if they’re firing on all cylinders.
LikeLike
I’m almost certain that Washington and Oregon are going to be in the Big Ten.
It’s highly risky to the Big Ten to not take those two to protect the West Coast presence that the Big Ten is building.
LikeLike
Zeek: “Another large market in Washington”
Nielsen TV DMA rank is 12 but it’s actually more robust than that. Population of Seattle is 4 million and the population of adjacent Vancouver BC is 2.5 million. Vancouver is the # 3 TV market in Canada.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&mid=1mvmajbp5YLHNFJVIWcuuGwWrU04&ll=48.46320236151251%2C-122.75762&z=8
LikeLike
One reason for the B1G to take OR/WA is to kill the PAC. AZ, ASU, Utah, CO are meeting with the B12 to get a lifeboat if one is needed. All of these schools think it is likely that OR/WA will leave and that will reduce the payouts in any reconstituted PAC far below what that could get in the B12. As long as OR/WA stay in the PAC these schools will stay. The other 4 do not matter. Even though UC Berkeley is in a good metro area it attracts the fewest viewers to its football games of all PAC teams (lower than OrSt, WaSt).
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten sees “killing the PAC” as a desirable end in itself. It will take the schools that are financially accretive to its bottom line. If those moves happen to kill off another conference, then so be it, but that is not why they are doing this.
LikeLike
As Frank mentioned in his Big 12 realignment index, recent on-field success is one of the least relevant criteria in conference realignment since University Presidents look at on-field success and ask “How long is this success sustainable?”
It sucks for the Ducks, but on-field success is a relatively minor part of the discussion
LikeLike
The point is that it’s sustainable for Washington and Oregon to operate at a high level and be relevant nationally in cfb.
That is the brand value that they have.
My larger point is the Big Ten runs a serious risk of damage to the “West Coast Big Ten” idea if USC/UCLA go through extended slumps.
To protect against that it makes sense to have 4 or 5 schools on the West coast.
And given Oregon and Washington have about as much value as the Big Ten average, it’s pretty sensible to add them.
LikeLike
The point is that UO brings nothing other than football.
In that sense, they’re like a lesser Nebraska (same small state and terrible local recruiting grounds, rabid but smaller fanbase, actually less historical success in football). When Nebraska football is down, they don’t contribute much (well, besides a traveling fanbase to buy tickets at other Midwestern B10 schools but UO wouldn’t even contribute that). Same with UO, and they’ll have the same difficulties sustaining success as UNL.
Also, with USC, UCLA, Stanford, UW (and Cal), I find it unlikely that all of the 5 WC B10 teams would be down at once.
And yes, think like a university president. This is a 100 year decision.
LikeLike
Diminishing Oregon but then promoting Cal seems odd to me, to say the least. Cal despite the fantastic academics looks to me to be a huge loser in all of these goings on; in fact I think their position is the most precarious in the PAC after Oregon St and Wash St.
I’m a little skittish on Oregon going forward and I’m not sure they are a “power” long term but they should be able to hold their own and be competitive at least and excel others. I think something like Michigan St level.
LikeLike
I can’t believe Big Ten presidents — who have the final say in all this — would abandon academic heavyweight Cal.
LikeLike
There are plenty of academic heavyweights they don’t wish to align with athletically.
LikeLike
Non-athletic (football) academic heavyweights = Vandy, GT, Cal, Kansas, Colorado, Duke, UVA.
LikeLike
Non-athletic (football) academic heavyweights = Vandy, GT, Cal, Kansas, Colorado, Duke, UVA = NIC or Not Invited Club.
LikeLike
I’m not really sure I understand why the Big Ten presidents would care about Cal specifically – especially after UCLA was okay to leave them behind. Certainly their academics could be used as justification would admitting them to the conference were they an otherwise borderline candidate, but I don’t think they bring enough to the table to even have that debate.
Besides, plenty of high quality schools have gotten the short end of the stick in these shorts of things. No one seems to care about the prospects for Rice, for example (not saying they are quite the same level, but still)
LikeLike
Think like a university president. This is a 100 year decision.
The point is that UO brings nothing other than football.
In that sense, they’re like a lesser Nebraska (same small state and terrible local recruiting grounds, rabid but smaller fanbase, actually less historical success in football). When Nebraska football is down, they don’t contribute much (well, besides a traveling fanbase to buy tickets at other Midwestern B10 schools but UO wouldn’t even contribute that). Same with UO, and they’ll have the same difficulties sustaining success as UNL.
Cal, on the other hand, even if contributing nothing in the revenue sports, will always have that population of HS students looking to go OOS to the B10, recruiting grounds, and a ton of local B10 alums besides the stellar academic reputation. In that sense, Cal would be like RU/UMD but elite academically.
And Brian, for those same reasons, the B10 actually wanted GTech, but GTech opted to stay in the ACC when no other southern school was acceptable to the B10 and willing to join. BTW, I wouldn’t put CU in the same category.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-pac-12s
Another Update from Canzano. Of note, the former FOX exec pegs Stanford’s TV value at 45 million and and Oregon’s (and Washington based off of his earlier 60 million estimate). I wonder if those numbers are what Stanford/UO/UW is worth to the PAC and not to the Big Ten. My thinking is USC is valuable, but USC playing the Big Ten’s “brands” is more valuable than playing the PAC 12. I am increasingly confident that Stan/UO/UW would be worth it for the Big Ten. I am basing this off the great ratings UO/Ohio St and UW/Michigan pulled last year.
He also notes Cal is 100 million in debt. It wouldn’t surprise me if Cal is left out.
LikeLike
Sorry Washington and Oregon’s TV value were pegged at 30 million each.
Don’t comment on mobile kids.
LikeLike
Interesting that Bob Thompson thinks a Stanford/Cal combo is 33% more valuable than an Oregon/Washington pairing.
LikeLike
frug: “Interesting that Bob Thompson thinks a Stanford/Cal combo is 33% more valuable than an Oregon/Washington pairing.”
It’s not interesting, it’s absurd if you know anything about college football brands. Additionally, you can make a reasonable argument that the Big Ten has already captured a hearty chunk of the SF Bay area college football market with USC and UCLA.
What Stanford and Cal bring to the table ain’t much. We may need Stanford as a lure for Notre Dame – and I also question that – but adding Cal would be like adding Pitt or Iowa State to the B1G.
LikeLike
Colin,.
I think his numbers are based on BTN revenue because the Bay area would now be in the official footprint so rates would go up significantly. There may be be more original B10 fans than Cal/Stanford fans living there, but it’s revenue either way. I don’t know if OTA value is increased at all, but it might be.
I agree USC and UCLA already give you a chunk of the market. So do old B10 fans. The athletic brands don’t bring much value, I agree. But the COP/C love the academic brands they’d bring.
LikeLike
BTN has historically charged full rate to all systems in a state if there is a Big Ten team in the state. Figure good chance BTN goes dark in Northern California if you they try that.
LikeLike
Arkstfan: “BTN has historically charged full rate to all systems in a state if there is a Big Ten team in the state. Figure good chance BTN goes dark in Northern California if you they try that.”
I figure the polar opposite, but the BTN is not the foremost issue here. When Southern Cal plays Wisconsin, and UCLA plays Penn State, what games will be on the major networks in the state? Stanford-Oregon State and Cal-Utah?
LikeLike
Arkstfan,
That may be true, but I’d venture CA is an exception due to size and lack of interest. That’s why the Bay area school add value – they would justify raising the price in the market.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the big mystery. How much do you count on carriage fees in the cord cutting environment?
LikeLike
That literally makes 0 sense based off all the data we have on their TV ratings and such over the last 20 years.
Washington and Oregon are the 2 most valuable teams left in the Pac-12 by a fair distance at this point.
Both resonate nationally as brands (Oregon’s is stronger due to recent success), and both bring new populations into the conference with Washington having a solid TV market in Seattle.
Cal brings no additional value beyond its inventory and same applies to Stanford (though Stanford will obviously have a leg up if the Big Ten gets ND and pairs Stanford with them).
Cal and Stanford don’t really carry the SF market so much as they are there.
LikeLike
It makes zero sense only if you’re thinking like an AD/football coach and not a university president.
Even UO and UW aren’t huge TV draws (they’re like a Wisconsin or UNL, not anywhere close to OSU/UMich).
And UO is a lesser UNL with no traveling fanbase. UW at least brings Seattle (B10 alums, bigger metro)
+ academic prowess.
And everyone is underestimating NoCal and academics for some reason. Add Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, ND, and either UW or Miami and as an _academic_brand_, the B10 would stand second only to the Ivy League. That’s not nothing when the B10 publics are facing declining home state HS enrollment, iffy state government support, and really need/want OOS/international revenues.
LikeLike
Mike,
Timing is key here. If the B10 adds UW, UO, Cal, and/or Stanford at the same time as USC and UCLA, then all that really matters is the final value of the total package. As long as that is higher than before, it’s fine. But once the new deal numbers start coming out, then any later additions have to meet that average value. I think the B10 can justify adding less valuable schools for non-financial reasons like reducing travel to improve student welfare. What they really need to decide is how large the B10 is willing to get and whether it is looking to grow east, west, or both. And also how long they will wait on ND.
LikeLike
And don’t forget 7-10 year buy in periods.
Washington/Oregon/Stanford will all be subject to buy ins that start at 50% or less of the current Big Ten member payouts (i.e. their last Pac-12 payout) scaling from around $35 million up to the current Big Ten number by 2032.
LikeLike
Oregon would be at the far bottom of the league academically. Arguably Nebraska has better academics.
What happens to Oregon after Phil dies? Does he have a legacy planned? I am not sure the LA schools love Oregon recruiting in their backyard so actively.
We need to think about recruiting for future schools. Georgia Tech etc. We seem to be locked out if Texas unfortunately and not sure what happens long-term in Florida.
LikeLike
I tend to think Oregon’s built up enough and has the Nike relationship that their current level is sustainable.
They’ve already built a sustainable system and the brand is strong enough that it should last.
As far as long-term recruiting goes, the 2 areas I think the Big Ten is focused on are obviously Cali and then Mid-Atlantic.
The strategy is probably to take 2-3 from the Mid-Atlantic (UNC, UVA, Duke) and maybe Ga Tech to plant a flag in Atlanta (though I’m skeptical it really helps given Georgia is an 800lb gorilla in its state).
LikeLike
It’s also worth remembering the point is that the Big Ten only needs somebody in the Western flank to be performing.
The odds are high that one or two of USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford are rolling at a 10+ win level in any given year.
That’s a lot safer for the Western flank than just USC/UCLA. I think it’s risky to assume that USC or UCLA will always be up.
What if both are down for 10-15 years? Does the West flank just completely die? Does the media stop caring about the Big Ten’s West flank?
Adding Oregon/Washington (and likely Stanford with ND) mitigates that concern. It adds all the strong brands out West and it’s highly likely one or two is a 10+ win contender in any given year or two.
LikeLike
Z33k: UO is a lesser Nebraska, especially after Phil Knight dies.
UO will have as much trouble sustaining success as the Huskers and as we have seen, when UNL is down in football, they don’t contribute much. Same with UO. Actually, UNL at least has traveling fans to sell tickets at Midwestern B10 schools. UO doesn’t even bring that.
LikeLike
Richard, my point is that you need more schools out West to protect the West flank/West Coast football markets.
You need a West Coast school or two performing at any given time.
If you have USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington (and Stanford if ND joins), that gives you 5 schools on the West coast that include the biggest brands in the West and strongest football programs.
You need that in case USC and UCLA go through down periods. If they do, the Big Ten’s West Coast presence is dead. Can’t risk that imo.
LikeLike
My point is that you need more schools out West to protect the West flank/West Coast football markets. You need a West Coast school or two performing at any given time.
Has any major conference expanded for this reason? The Big Ten took Rutgers and Maryland for its East Coast flank, and both so far are perennial doormats. They don’t seem to mind.
LikeLike
Indeed, listen to Marc. And my only change is replacing UO with Cal. So the USC/UCLA/Stanford/UW/Cal combo would lead to a drastically bigger chance of the B10 not having a good WC team compared to the USC/UCLA/Stanford/UW/UO combo?
Yeah, I don’t buy that, especially with USC+UCLA leaving their conference cutting off the Ducks from SoCal recruiting grounds and very especially if Stanford+Cal aren’t in the same conference as the Ducks either, cutting them off from NoCal recruiting grounds. I think you’re suffering from too much recency bias. It’s like when UNL joined the B10, cutting them off from TX recruiting grounds. Sure, both teams recruit nationally, but everyone does these days, and if all 4 Pac schools go to a different conference than UO, UO is much more likely to have the record UNL had after joining the B10 than UO had before now.
Plus, why are strong WC B10 teams such an absolute necessity? UMD and RU not challenging much in football hasn’t exactly hurt the B10 brand.
LikeLike
@Marc
Big Ten and SEC have never tried to expand far outside of their region.
There’s no road map for this imo.
R utgers/MD aren’t anything like this expansion.
They planted outposts next to Penn State to help move Big Ten towards that region and the big coastal markets.
The difference here is the Big Ten is building a platform in an entirely different part of the country.
I think Big Ten needs to be the main show out West and USC/UCLA are not enough to accomplish that.
Especially when you have two programs of Wisconsin type quality out there in Oregon/Washington that can basically pay for themselves with a scaled buy in, I think you have to add those two at minimum.
LikeLike
Good info here on expansion candidates. SIAP
LikeLike
Indeed, nice summary.
I do agree that he is spot on about putting UO 4th in the pecking order behind Stanford, Cal, and UW in that group of 4 when it comes to attractiveness.
But what stuck out to me is how similarly piddly the ratings are for all the non-LA (AAU) Pac teams.
That does argue for the B10 taking either ND+Stanford or standing pat at 16 with amsome chance of Stanford+Cal due to non-football factors.
LikeLike
One other thought while I’m at it. Jim Phillips may not be as dumb as some people are now saying about the CFP expansion. He understands how badly ESPN wants that, and he may be using that as a negotiating tool with ESPN in order to benefit the ACC schools who will get left behind when all the dust settles, i.e. in the settlement terms that ESPN and the ACC leftovers will inevitably reach. Agreeing to a CFP expansion and a continuation of the ACC/ESPN media deal to its end would effectively cripple every one of the ACC schools in the long run, and he knows that. This way, he’ll salvage as many of his schools’ football viability as he can.
LikeLike
That approach might have worked when playoff expansion required unanimity. Now that it does not, what kind of leverage does Phillips have? Any playoff format that is acceptable to the Big Ten and the SEC, the others will more-or-less have to go along with.
LikeLike
Sure, if ESPN wants to wait four years.
LikeLike
Nope. The “wait four years” window has passed already.
LikeLike
That is incorrect. Unanimity was required to expand before the end of the current contract. The current contract runs through 2025, hence “wait four years” if you can’t get unanimity.
LikeLike
“After months of lengthy debates and multiple meetings about expansion, the College Football Playoff will remain at four teams through the end of its current 12-year contract, which expires following the 2025 season, CFP executive director Bill Hancock announced Friday.”
“In order for the playoff to expand before the current contract expires, the 10 FBS commissioners and Swarbrick would have had to unanimously agree to the expansion.”
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33319948/college-football-playoff-remain-4-teams-12-year-contract-expires-2025-season
LikeLike
The distance from Los Angeles to Seattle is 961 miles (by air). Portland is a bit closer (827 miles plus a bus to Eugene). These are not easy road trips for USC and UCLA. It doesn’t take a lot longer (by air) to go to Nebraska.
I think it is a mistake to assume USC and UCLA will be grateful to have Oregon and Washington join them the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agreed. I do think Stanford would be a different story. It makes for a lot easier travel midweek for Olympic sports. It’s a shame that Cal is such a dumpster fire because they also would make for easier midweek travel. Stanford I think gets in for those reasons and if the scheduling for the 3 is enough to reduce the travel burden, I could see that being it for the west coast expansion for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yes – my general feeling from a lot of fans in conference realignment discussions over the years is that they tend to overrate the geographic distances between major markets in the Eastern half of the US and vastly underrate them in the Western half.
Think of it this way: it’s a longer driving distance from LA to Seattle than it is from either Rutgers or Maryland to Iowa City. The distance concerns about having NYC and DC in the Big Ten footprint are quite quaint compared to what the full Pac-12 (which most people would perceive to be a geographically logical conference) has dealt with for many years. People that live on the East Coast or in the Midwest or Southeast generally have a very poor concept of just how massive the distances are between the major cities when you head west from Denver.
It’s possible that Washington and Oregon could add to the Big Ten’s TV package, but they are NOT “travel partners” to USC and UCLA. The only pairs of schools that could conceivably be travel partners to the LA schools (in the sense of being possibly driving distance or a truly short flight) are Stanford/Cal and Arizona/Arizona State.
LikeLike
Totally agree with Frank on the distance issues on the west coast. Washington is a great university but is the Pacific Northwest a must have? Not a hotbed of existing Big Ten alums or recruits. I see the Northwest like I see the Northeast. Not a need for major college sports leagues.
From a recruiting standpoint I don’t think USC likes the competition with Oregon. Stanford and Cal likely target a different level of recruit.
The bigger question is do they take both Cal and Stanford or just 1?
LikeLike
Frank,
Yes, the distances are large out west. But not changing time zones has a big benefit, too. North/south travel is much easier on the body and for scheduling than east/west travel.
LikeLike
Seattle actually has a good number of B10 alums.
LikeLike
Plus, the sheer number of direct flights between LA/Portland and LA/Seattle is vastly greater than LA and every Big Ten city west of the Appalachians (minus Chicago). That will matter to the Olympic sports as they travel. They won’t get charter planes.
LA to Seattle might be similar in distance as LA to Nebraska…but there are far more flights going between the former two.
LikeLike
Pretty certain LA is a hub, though. For United. So they can fly direct to a lot of places.
LikeLike
Can understand the debate on who’s running the show on Grant of Right (GoR) issues – the conferences or ESPN. Awful Announcing ran a good article by Andrew Bucholtz on 7/2 that dives into it. Worth the read.
At the time, the ACC schools signed the GoR with multiple intents – to lock down membership and to maximize its value to ESPN. Stability for everyone.
In the end though, it is a binding contract. The parties who will end up fighting in court are the schools – not ESPN.
At best, there are 5-6 ACC schools who might gain entry into the Big 10/SEC. For the other 8-9 schools, expect Jim Phillips to channel Pres. Whitmore’s “We will not go quietly into the night” speech (from Independence Day). There is no benefit to the ACC at large to let any school go.
There’s not going to be any kind of settlement on this for the foreseeable future. Frank has long opined that the ACC is more stable than it looks, and it is even if unhappily.
In the eyes of ND, one of its scheduling partners switched conferences – that’s it & it’s not a prelude for ending independence. And the ACC is staying put. Sorry folks… the Endgame is not anywhere near. But for the PAC-12 and Big XII, it’s gonna get messy.
LikeLike
Frank has long opined that the ACC is more stable than it looks, and it is even if unhappily.
I agree with you on the ACC: nobody yet has suggested a credible way the grant of rights could be broken — hence, they are stuck with it until the 2030s, whether they are happy or not.
In the eyes of ND, one of its scheduling partners switched conferences – that’s it & it’s not a prelude for ending independence.
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. It’s not that one of ND’s rivals switched conferences. It’s that the money gap is getting a lot wider. At some point, you cannot leave that much money on the table.
Prominent alumni are calling for the Irish to join the Big Ten. In the past, that was practically unheard of. Something has fundamentally changed. I am not saying they are ready to move, but it’s significant that Irish boosters are not dead-set against it.
LikeLike
“Frank has long opined that the ACC is more stable than it looks”
The ACC is stable because its schools are trapped.
LikeLike
I think ND may have a hard time with scheduling if we were to go to 10 conference games and likely owning the Rose Bowl. What does that mean for their championship access?
LikeLike
Scheduling is less of a problem for ND than you might think. Eight of ND’s 12 games are contractually committed long into the future. Of the remaining four, they typically schedule just one premier opponent per year. The remaining three could be anybody.
The premier opponent sometimes is a Big Ten team, but not always. Alabama and Texas A&M fill that slot in future years; Georgia and Texas have filled it in the recent past. Now, if every program of that caliber refused to schedule ND, they would have a problem. So far, there is no sign of that happening.
If USC refused to stop playing them, that would be a steeper hill to climb, but do you think the Big Ten really wants to stop playing significant non-conference games? Suggestions that the B10 would refuse to schedule Notre Dame have been out there for years, and it never happens.
LikeLike
What is the % of Domer alumnus who want to get into the B10 and how does that compare to the past 2 romantic overtures? Alumnus sentiment isn’t necessarily a leading indicator but if the numbers are significant it matters even if it is a lagging indicator.
LikeLike
Hard to put it at a percentage, but joining a conference used to be the third rail of Notre Dame fandom — about as likely as Ohio State changing its school colors to yellow and blue. The fact that any notable ND alumnus would favor joining the Big Ten is significant, whether it is a majority yet or not.
LikeLike
Oregon/Washington (and Stanford):
Remember that those 3 (and anybody else not named USC/UCLA/ND) will likely face a steep buy in over a 7-10 year period.
They will be receiving scaled in payments that likely start around 35 million and move towards 80-90 million by 2030.
So when you see somebody in the media say “Oh Oregon/Washington don’t pay for themselves because they only add $120 million”, it’s completely ignoring how all of this works.
USC/UCLA will add >$200 million to the TV contract.
ND will add >$150 million to the TV contract.
Those 3 will more than pay for themselves (and help pay for the other 3); the other 3 will also not be detriments due to a scaled in buy in…
In other words, the current 14 team Big Ten will all be kept whole and get increased payouts as a result of this expansion round.
LikeLike
And this isn’t even beginning to consider the explosion of money that could come from a Big Ten football tournament or 100% control of the Rose Bowl as a Big Ten championship game or any other postseason changes.
Just keep in mind that any expansion can be justified financially as long as it’s the right schools (and I would classify Oregon/Washington in that category).
We’re not adding a bunch of schools that don’t pay for themselves here. If ND comes, the Big Ten can easily move to 20.
Even without ND, the Big Ten can easily move to 18. The scaled in “buy in” system that we used for Nebraska/Rutgers will be used for Oregon/Washington/Stanford.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t “right a\schools” include academic research? That’s a category where Berkeley shines.
LikeLike
Within reason because a school has to be justifiable financially for sports at this point.
Cal is not really justifiable financially.
If we want an outpost there, Stanford as a pair with ND makes the most sense if ND wants to keep their annual Cali visit.
LikeLike
RU and UMD were justifiable financially.
Again, think like a University President.
If OOS students pay $30/K extra tuition a year, an extra thousand OOS students per class (so 4K total) is $120mm/year. OK, that’s a pretty ambitious number, but the point is that locking down CA, getting CA HS kids to think of B10 country as being synonymous with CA is a potential gold mine.
LikeLike
But media deals are completely different now than they were 10 years ago. Pay TV was completely different.
Rutgers and Maryland were added under totally different circumstances.
I don’t see a place for Cal here.
It could happen but financially it doesn’t work.
Counting on the surplus of Big Ten grads in NYC/DC metros and using state universities with large student bodies/alumni bases in a nearby area is very different from trying to justify Cal now.
LikeLike
Uh, Cal is exactly the same as RU and UMD in that respect, Zeek.
The Bay Area has a ton of B10 alums and Cal is a big school located in the Bay Area with a ton of alums.
You seem to think Cal is a small liberal arts college located in Modesto or something.
BTW, I disagree that the financial model for adding RU+UMD doesn’t work now. The B10 will break records for TV revenue in part because those RU and UMD alums were converted to B10 fans.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t “right a\schools” include academic research? That’s a category where Berkeley shines.
Name one conference expansion that was done for research, if the athletic revenue did not make sense.
LikeLike
Yup
LikeLike
Herbstreit (who made the obligatory preface that ‘no one knows, but…’) has heard that Florida has made it clear to the SEC they will only accept one in-state rival (Florida State) not two. I think that makes sense. Kirk H also thinks if ND joins the B1G, they might campaign for Miami. They’re not AAU and there may not be an open slot, but I think a Florida presence would be a huge win for the B1G.
LikeLike
Herbie does not have the best record with such predictions. In any case, I don’t think it makes sense for the SEC to take two more Florida schools even if UF would agree.
With nobody else predicting a ND–Miami paring, I am not prepared to accept it on his say-so. And if the Irish did insist on that, I do not see the Big Ten agreeing.
LikeLike
He doesn’t expect you to believe it. He made it abundantly clear it was only one possible scenario based on what he’s heard. Point being, if true, it would leave Miami available if the B1G was interested.
LikeLike
He doesn’t expect you to believe it.
I think he does expect that, even with all of the caveats.
LikeLike
If it wasn’t for global warming, I’d agree to it, and I think the B10 Presidents would too. Miami is essentially USC 2 decades ago academically.
LikeLike
Miami is essentially USC 2 decades ago academically.
You sure about that? USC has been in the AAU for over 50 years. Miami has never been.
LikeLike
Herbstreit sort of just sounds like he’s spitballing (which is fine), but most here have more understanding of how this all works than many of the sports commentators do.
He was saying the other day he thinks the endgame is 2 conferences of 30 teams, but we all know that it’s unlikely the Big Ten and SEC go past 24.
I think 40-44 is the likely limit of Big Ten/SEC expansion; that’s the point at which there’s not enough extra brand schools outside to add to the two.
Regardless, as long as the AAU issue applies, it’s hard to see Miami coming.
Big Ten’s focus in the ACC is likely UNC/UVA (and then Duke and Ga Tech as add ons to those two if justified financially).
LikeLike
Neither Duke or Ga tech comes close to meeting the financial threshold. Yes, GT is a great research institution and Duke would be a nice add in tandem with UNC, but in the Super Conference era it’s a marketing battle of exciting match-ups that counts. Which football games draw the most eyeballs nation wide. Georgia Tech doesn’t draw flies.
LikeLike
You need to have lower tier teams. No one wants a bunch of 6-6 or 7-5 teams. The college football fan is not accustomed to a NFL like win/loss record.
LikeLike
I agree, but the B1G already has an abundance of cannon fodder. Also, a marketable brand doesn’t necessarily equate with excellence on the field. Miami, UCLA, USC, Michigan have all had down decades and still command national interest and deliver ratings. I think the SEC is at greater risk of that scenario.
LikeLike
It depends on how much they value double dipping in NC and having an outpost in Atlanta.
I think Big Ten would take Duke for the basketball rivalry and 2nd NC post as a way of emphasizing that North Carolina is a Big Ten state.
Ga Tech is harder to justify due to their lack of pull across Georgia.
LikeLike
I think Big Ten would take Duke for the basketball rivalry and 2nd NC post as a way of emphasizing that North Carolina is a Big Ten state.
So far, power conferences generally have not expanded for basketball, because football is about 80% of the revenue. Duke might, and I stress might, be the one school worthy of an exception. But then you are taking two schools in the same state that are football deadweight. If you look at the revenue-per-school that the UNC–Duke combo has to bring, I am not sure it is there.
Yes, I know that any schools joining from now on (except maybe Notre Dame) will have a gradual buy-in like Maryland and Rutgers had, but any elementary analysis is going to consider terminal value.
Ga Tech is harder to justify due to their lack of pull across Georgia.
That, and expansion comes in pairs. So, even if you want Georgia Tech, what is the school paired with it, that together brings enough revenue to pay for itself? (And satisfies the Big Ten’s other requirements like AAU membership.)
You are correct that Georgia Tech does not have anything like the passionate statewide popularity that Georgia has. Besides that, the Big Ten has not (at least so far) been second fiddle in any state it expanded to. Georgia will always be an SEC state, even if Tech has the occasional great year. I doubt that the Big Ten wants to be in permanent second place anywhere it does business.
LikeLike
I wonder if Georgia Tech would be viewed like Rutgers. Rutgers alone doesn’t deliver the New York City market but combined with the rest of the Big Ten teams it was a profitable move. Does Georgia Tech plus the rest of the Big Ten teams deliver the Atlanta market? If that’s the case, then Georgia Tech would make sense. The same calculus might be made for Miami as well.
LikeLike
Rutgers was added only because Maryland was, and I think very clearly the less desirable of the two. Only after Maryland approached the Big Ten did they even sniff at Rutgers.
Thus, the issue with GT is not just the Yellowjackets themselves, but finding a second school that in combination adds enough revenue to more-than-pay for itself — and that meets the league’s other criteria as well. That strikes me as an almost impossible set of conditions for GT to satisfy.
You said it yourself in your subsequent post: Notre Dame is really the only big fish left. And if Notre Dame joins, there are many more 18th schools that could add more than Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Even if GT joined the B10, Atlanta would be an SEC market. The top teams in the city are UGA and then Auburn. Alabama and maybe even FSU top GT in popularity there, too. GT is like NW, with their alumni being so dispersed that they don’t control their home market.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is the only big football brand left that will consistently draw eyeballs nationwide even if they are crap. Any Big Ten expansion will have to be for other reasons like demographics and travel concerns.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – I’m working on a new post soon, but your point is a *really* important one to emphasize. Both the SEC expansion with UT and OU and the Big Ten expansion with USC and UCLA have this one aspect in common: they were pure unambiguous power moves taking the 2 top brands from the Big 12 and Pac-12 with *no* fat or filler.
A week ago, it would have been inconceivable to me that the Big Ten would ever turn down pretty much any school in the Pac-12 besides Washington State and Oregon State if they ever approached the league. They all carry massive markets and worth substantially more in the conference realignment market than any Big 12 schools and many (most?) ACC schools. Most importantly, they would have been stalking horses to get to the *real* prizes of USC and UCLA.
The thing is, though, the Big Ten *got* the real prizes from the get go. They didn’t need to add anyone else to get USC and UCLA just as the SEC didn’t need to add schools like Texas Tech or Oklahoma State to get UT and OU.
After processing Thursday’s news for the past few days, I’m leaning more and more that it will take Notre Dame or the very unlikely prospect of some ACC schools moving for the Big Ten to expand further. With the new value of adding USC, UCLA and the LA market to the Big Ten, the bar for any expansion to simply break even (much less make additional money) will very likely take a Notre Dame-level addition. Solid upper tier schools that would have been more than good enough a week ago are suddenly not going to be good enough anymore.
There might be long-term institutional and demographic reasons other than pure TV money for further Big Ten expansion (which is why I wouldn’t sleep on the league eventually adding Stanford and Cal in particular), but the point is that probably not even Oregon and Washington would make more revenue on a per school basis for the league at this point. The schools that moved over the past year – UT, OU, USC and UCLA – are the types of programs that are the lynchpin end goals for league expansion as opposed to the starting points to further expansion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, Frank, and evenly purely in terms of TV money, Cal+Stanford bring more value than UW+UO. I think some folks really are blinded by recency bias.
LikeLike
If by “2 top brands from the . . . Pac-12,” you are referring to football, I can’t agree that UCLA fits that description. In terms of average TV viewership per game, the Pac-12 ranking is USC, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, then UCLA. (https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50) IMO, the B1G included UCLA with USC because of academic fit and because USC wanted them included.
LikeLike
1. Yeah I suspect he’s guessing.
2. His guess and mine align.
LikeLike
“Kirk H also thinks if ND joins the B1G, they might campaign for Miami.”
ND has played Miami four times in the past 30 years. This is a rivalry?
LikeLike
Notre Dame won’t tell the Big Ten what to do.
LikeLike
I just do not buy Notre Dame wanting to renew Catholics vs. Convicts. They broke off the series after 1990 (from 1971-1990 they played every year except 1). After a 20 year break they met in the Sun Bowl. Last 10 years one game in Chicago, one in South Bend. Hardly the team Notre Dame would request. Miami is a smallish (16K) private school. I doubt the SEC is interested even if they do not add FSU. Miami had a lot ot T-shirt fans during their glory days in the 80’s / 90’s; however, they are long gone. .
LikeLike
…and deny 2LiveCrew of a comback?! 😊
LikeLike
The statement that UF will only accept FSU in the SEC makes total sense. First I do not think that UF would have a choice, since the Florida legislature would protect FSU if at all possible.
Miami would largely irrelevant politically in Tallahassee. UF would be forced to support FSU and no other team. No one much north of Broward county (at the very most) cares about U Miami. (Alums excepted of course). It is very easy to believe that UF would be strongly against Miami in the SEC (as would FSU if they had a voice).
Between UF and FSU, they control pretty much all of Florida. There are Miami fans in the Miami area and probably a group of UCF fans in Orlando. USF is in Tampa, but they are probably third in Tampa behind UF and FSU. I would imagine that UF is number one in Tampa Bay.
The State of FL has been trying to academically upgrade UF and FSU. And then there are the rest of the schools in the state to take the overflow from Gainesville and Tallahassee. That would be how the legislature views football leagues also.
LikeLike
If I could implant a choosing-chip into the mind of Kevin Warren (and a snoozing-chip into the mind of Greg Sankey) this would be my B1G Super Conference, It is not meant to offend, anger, trouble or trigger, though it might cause some gnashing of teeth.
EAST: Penn State/Maryland/Duke/UNC/Miami/FSU
CENTRAL: Michigan/Indiana/Notre Dame/Purdue/Ohio State/Rutgers
NORTH: Wisconsin/Minn/Michigan State/Iowa/Northwestern/Illinois
WEST: USC/UCLA/Oregon/Stanford/Washington/Nebraska
LikeLike
I don’t have any issue with that set of schools, assuming one wants a 24-team conference. Miami is pretty unlikely, but I have seen worse ideas.
There is no way they would go with pods or divisions like that. Too many of the locked games are nonsense. And for every game you lock without a good reason, it means the rest of the conference is seen less often.
To give but one example, Michigan, Ohio State, or Notre Dame vs. Purdue or Indiana is TV deadweight, and that accounts for 6 games a year in your model. Purdue and Indiana deserve their fair share of king games, but not to that extent.
Also, you have not locked Michigan/MSU, and those two are obviously going to play every year.
LikeLike
Why is Oregon clearly above Colorado for the B1G? Denver is an important city for alums, adds a bridge to West Coast schools, better academics, bigger state, and existing rivalry with NU. Does Oregons better football brand offset all of that? Based on the rumors, it does…
LikeLike
They’ve been in 2 national championship games in recent memory and have built a strong program funded by Knight/Nike.
Oregon’s football program looks sustainable even if things will change in an expanded/more top heavy Big Ten.
Also have strong support/viewership across Western markets.
4 strongest brands in the West are pretty clearly USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon.
Gap between those 4 and the rest.
LikeLike
“4 strongest brands in the West are pretty clearly USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon.” Based on what? If you mean football viewership, that doesn’t appear to be accurate. Stanford comes in at #2, and UCLA is #5. https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50
LikeLike
I don’t know what the Big Ten will decide. Unlike @z33k, I am not pounding the table for a particular theory. But I do feel strongly that certain criteria are not likely to matter.
If Colorado is a “bridge to the west coast,” it is a bridge with an awful lot of holes. That won’t figure in the decision. Colorado and Nebraska used to be conference mates, but that is about it. Of their seven former Big Eight rivals, Nebraska played Colorado sixth-most. That won’t matter either.
It’s true that Colorado has more Big Ten alumni than Oregon or Washington State, but San Francisco has more than all of them.
LikeLike
Why is Oregon clearly above Colorado for the B1G? Denver is an important city for alums, adds a bridge to West Coast schools, better academics, bigger state, and existing rivalry with NU.
IMO – Coloradans just don’t seem to care about the Buffalos like they do the Broncos, Rockies, Avs and Nuggets. CU seems to get lost in the shuffle a bit.
LikeLike
What I really don’t understand are those people who think that the B10 would want UNC+UVa (or UNC+Duke) but not Cal+Stanford (or Cal+UW).
In pretty much all factors of expansion that matter, Cal+Stanford/UW is at least the equal and in some aspects is superior to UNC+Duke/UVa.
Note that Cal+Stanford locks down NoCal to a greater extent than UNC+UVa does NC and VA (VTech and NCSU exist and inspire as much loyalty in their home state as MSU and each of the B10 IN schools do in their home state).
Maybe it’s because folks don’t seem to realize how populous and rich NoCal (CA in general) is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. From afar, UNC looks like it should be very valuable, but it doesn’t seem like their legions of t-shirt basketball fans care about UNC football at all. One data point: Notre Dame at UNC NBC prime time last year only had 2.34 million viewers. In the same timeslot, Penn St vs Ohio St on ABC pulled 7 million and Ole Miss vs Auburn on ESPN had 2.5 million. Somehow, the best possible TV match up for UNC managed to greatly underperform.
Duke probably has more t-shirt basketball fans than UNC and their football team had 6 ACCN games, 3 RSN/ESPN+ games, and one each on CBSSN/ESPN2/ESPN.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s a valid point that UNC might not be that valuable in this football-centric era of conference changes. But that doesn’t make Cal valuable though. Cal is a fantastic school academically and with broad athletic programs, but IMHO is relatively worthless to the Big Ten despite the location. NoCal is populated and wealthy – but it’s also generally apathetic and fragmented when it comes to college sports. I don’t think either Cal or Stanford – or both – really “bring in” that market to an appreciable degree that would add TV ratings and revenue. Furthermore, to the extent that getting a Bay Area school makes sense for the Big Ten, I think it would be more of a “plant your flag” value and they would only take one of the schools. and I think Stanford is actually the better choice despite being private and more atypical – Stanford has the better athletic success and the better academic reputation nationally (Cal is obviously fantastic, but I don’t think it is as well known or regarded outside of the west coast as Stanford is).
Then again, I’m also one of the people who thinks that the Big Ten won’t expand beyond 20 in the short or medium term. I feel the threshold for a school to meet to make them worthwhile to the conference is actually very high and tough for any of the remaining schools to meet. I think without Notre Dame coming on board, they stay at 16 at least for a while.
LikeLike
Richard,
I don’t really have a strong opinion on who the B10 would or wouldn’t want at this point, but some reasons people might favor UVA/UNC (or UNC/Duke) over Cal/Stanford (or Cal/UW):
1. Uncertainty about CA
How much of NoCal does the B10 get just for adding USC/UCLA? How strong is the fandom for the NoCal schools? Would they actually add anything monetarily? Do USC/UCLA want the NoCal schools added?
2. Time
People have spent years contemplating the B10 chasing ACC schools, but few seriously considered the P12 option. It takes time to wrap your head around all the variables.
3. Inertia
The original eastward expansion was assumed to be aimed at UNC, especially with Delany in charge. Has that plan changed since he left, or were USC and UCLA just targets of opportunity that couldn’t be refused? It seems likely the B10 will focus in one direction or the other first, though they could do both at once.
4. Football
NC is a strong recruiting ground for athletes and the people care about CFB. NoCal is populous, but it isn’t as strong a recruiting region (per capita) and the people don’t strongly care about CFB.
LikeLike
Per Capita isn’t what matters, though.
Sideshow Bob: Cal would be like a RU/UMD add. Yes, Stanford would plant a flag in NoCal, but Cal still is a big state school with way more alums than Stanford.
Anyway, we’ll see. I believe that the B10 pecking order is
ND+someone (likely Stanford)
Cal+UW or Cal+Stanford
.
.
UO
B10 may sit pat if no ND, though.
LikeLike
I threw in per capita because I didn’t want to crunch the numbers on recruits from NoCal. Sites rarely separate them that way. Rough numbers:
NoCal = 15.4M (obviously depends on where you draw the line, but that’s the Google number)
NC = 10.4M
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/4/18/15340728/recruits-per-state-ncaa-map
5.9% of NC HS players are recruited to I-A.
3.5% of CA HS players are.
That means more recruits come from NC than NoCal.
Multiple people are saying neither Cal nor Stanford would be willing to pay players if that’s where CFB is headed (esp. because their faculties would go nuts), and would instead downgrade. Do you risk adding schools that truly feel that way?
LikeLike
If academics + large media market really is that important, then we’d see Rice be invited to the Big Ten any day now.
LikeLike
If Rice was a flagship school or big brand, yes.
LikeLike
Sideshow Bob: Rice is missing the huge number of alums of a B10-sized flagship and Houston actually isn’t one of the major destinations of B10 alums (the Bay Area, Seattle, and Atlanta are).
Brian: Cal and Stanford will feel the exact same way about paying football players as Michigan and Northwestern will. And what is the risk here? If they drop down, what is the downside? If you didn’t add them, they wouldn’t be in your conference anyway, I fail to see how it would be worse.
LikeLike
NW I believe, but not MI. MI is too committed to CFB at this point.
Risk? You add a bunch of travel to all the non-revenue sports to have schools that bring no money to the conference. They might go full UChicago, but they might only drop the revenue sports down. Nobody knows what the future of college sports looks like, so it’s a risk.
So what’s the balancing reward? Being a strong academic conference? The B10 already is. And it’s a little better with UCLA and USC. And additions like UVA or UNC or Duke would help some, too. So would Cal and Stanford, obviously. So what? Where is the multi-million dollar per year benefit to that?
LikeLike
Brian: The millions of dollars come from the OOS/International students who would pay $30K more a year per student (for the original B10 publics that are in states with declining HS populations). As I noted elsewhere, a mere extra 100 OOS/International students per class means 100x4x30K=$12mm more a year, which would outweigh any change in the per capita TV payout.
Now, this would be a long-term project: these days, “Ivy League” is synonymous with “top tier American uni” decades after they desperately tried to stay in DivI-A and still were seen mostly as a pathetic sports league.
But if the B10 takes the schools I envision, the B10 would have more representation in top b-schools, top law schools, even on Wall Street, and way more in Silicon Valley than the Ivy League. That most definitely would lead to an increase in both the quality and quantity of OOS/International applicants to B10 schools (and money).
Your own alma mater (which has rapidly moved up the academic rankings recently), I daresay, would rather have people consider it’s peers to be Cal, UVa, UNC, and most definitely Stanford and Duke than ultra-successful football schools like Bama, LSU, Clemson, or even UGa.
LikeLike
How does adding academic schools guarantee a lot more OOS students? Brands get coverage (free advertising). Playing Cal is barely a blip on the local newspaper website. Personally, I don’t see enough reward to justify the risk.
LikeLike
Brian, do you think that Dartmouth
and Brown would have such crazy low admit rates and the academic prestige they have if they weren’t in the Ivy League? I daresay not. If they weren’t in the Ivy League, Brown and Dartmouth would be Tufts and Brandeis.
What about if the sports conference they belonged to didn’t include HYP and Columbia but Syracuse, Pitt, UMass, and BU instead?
I think you’re really underestimating the effect of creating a consortium of unis that would rival or even surpass the Ivy League in alumni achievements, research, and pretty much all academic measures.
LikeLike
Brian, or wait, do you not see the connection between increased perceived academic prestige and more OOS/International students?
LikeLike
I think many state schools are limited in how many OOS students they can take, and already had quite a few (COVID dropped numbers). If they wanted more, the applications are there already. You might get better students (always a good thing), but that doesn’t make millions generally.
The B10 will never be considered like the Ivies no matter who they add, because it’s full of large land grant state schools that people on the coasts will always look down on. Private schools are viewed as more elite, especially on the east coast.
LikeLike
Brian:
Perceptions can change.
Matching or besting the Ivies in the top 50/100 of international rankings (or whatever criteria you care to look at) would change those perceptions. UMich now is as tough/tougher to get in to as the lower Ivies a generation ago despite being massive with a ton of slots.
And _some_ B10 schools are getting all the full-pay OOS students they want/need. Not all. Not everyone is UMich. Would MSU, IU, Iowa, definitely Nebraska, UMTC, and even your alma mater want more full-pay OOS students (as opposed to those given scholarships)? Most definitely.
And yes, raising the quality of the student body is good. It’s a virtuous cycle. Better student body->more distinguished alums/strong alumni base/more donations->better student body/better faculty->better research->higher-rankings->more prestige/better student body. All turbocharged by being in a conference that has nearly all of the academically stellar unis that play FBS football.
LikeLike
The hypothesis that the Big Ten wants any more Western schools without Notre Dame will likely be proven or demolished within in a week or two, at most. There is no Pac-12 school that would turn down a Big Ten offer. If the Big Ten wants those schools regardless of Notre Dame, it can have them by lunchtime if it wants.
If it does not add them forthwith, I take it as a pretty good indication that the initial media reports were correct: there will be no more Western additions in the near future without Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I wonder if the Big Ten will see how the travel issues play out for USC and UCLA for a few years before deciding on more western schools. I believe it will eventually become untenable for the Olympics sports that Stanford, and or Cal, will be added at some point but maybe USC and UCLA have already ran the numbers and it will work out.
LikeLike
More western schools is bad for B1G on travel and harder on athletes. Unless they go Stanford/Cal or Arizona/Arizona State a two game swing means intervening flight.
There is an argument to be made that Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington or some mix of them are more valuable next contract if they grow their brands in a weakened but viable PAC-10.
If Notre Dame is effectively handcuffed to 2036 stopping and waiting has significant merit.
One thing that falls through the cracks. A schools value is related to conference. If Notre Dame were loading up with G5s and FCS their tv value is lower.
LikeLike
The travel issues fall on USC/UCLA though, not the bulk of the Big Ten. If it was a major concern for the LA schools, they would have probably made their acceptance contingent on bringing in 4 total PAC-12 schools, etc. I’m not even sure that USC/UCLA want more west coast schools – they might be happy being the big fish of the west without any competition.
Also, I’m curious how do the athletics go to away games in the PAC-12 already? Most of the away trips have got to be flights anyway its usually a bigger deal switching from bus to plane than increasing the flight time once you are up in the air.
LikeLike
I’m curious how do the athletics go to away games in the PAC-12 already? Most of the away trips have got to be flights anyway its usually a bigger deal switching from bus to plane than increasing the flight time once you are up in the air.
Even in the Big Ten, teams take planes more than they take buses. Many of the Big Ten’s road trips are prohibitively long in a bus. I agree with you, once you’re in a plane, another hour either way is not that much of a difference. But trips for the California schools will be a LOT longer than they are used to, not a little bit.
More significant is the time change, which plays tricks on the body that are hard to avoid, no matter what you do.
LikeLike
I think Big Ten is serious about not doing anything until ND decides.
This round ends in mid-August imo.
LikeLike
Reason Big Ten won’t announce Pac-12 schools until after ND decides is because that determines whether it’s 2 or 3 coming.
I think Big Ten wants to do just 1 more taking of Pac-12 schools.
LikeLike
For scheduling purposes, the total number of teams in a conference should be evenly divisible by four. With USC and UCLA, the B1G is at 16, which could well be the stopping point, possibly for a decade or more, 2036 for example.
The maximum manageable size is probably 24 teams. In four pods/divisions of six, each team can play a round robin for the pod/division title plus one team from each other division, for a total of eight games. That leaves four games for other purposes, OOC games and protected games outside the division.
With 16 teams, each pod/division has a round robin of three games, and with two games in each other division you get to nine games, leaving three for other purposes.
I don’t think ND is coming to the B1G anytime soon, even though they are chained to a corpse, and will suffer significant revenue opportunity costs when the new contracts for the SEC and B1G come in. Pride goeth before a fall. But if they do wise up and join the B1G, they should come with three other teams. So, the real question is, What does ND plus three look like?
LikeLike
Why do people keep suggesting pods, when it is literally the worst scheduling format? Pods were a decent way to schedule a 16-team league when the NCAA required divisional play to stage a conference championship game. With the divisional requirement gone, the one and only reason for pods no longer exists.
The problem with pods is that you always end up with pod mates that make little to no competitive sense. And the more teams you are locked into playing annually, the less often you see every other team in the conference.
LikeLike
The competitive issue is real. You do want your best teams to play each other sometime. Pod/division members don’t have to be physically contiguous. In principle Maryland and Nebraska or Rutgers and USC could be in the same pod. But that raises the issue of travel equity between schools. Travel costs and times need some sort of balancing.
But scheduling becomes a problem once you get beyond 10 teams total. The teams can’t play everyone in the conference, so you need some sort of pod/division setup. I suppose you could set up some sort of random pod/division assignments that change every third year or so, to keep two year home-and-away pairings. But then you get the problem of keeping protected games.
Of course, this is all about football. But what sort of structure suits basketball, or track, or hockey. Do you put the half dozen or so hockey teams in a pod? Does each sport have its own division structure?
Anyway, the main problem now is the 1500 miles from Nebraska to LA.
LikeLike
But scheduling becomes a problem once you get beyond 10 teams total. The teams can’t play everyone in the conference, so you need some sort of pod/division setup.
Pods/divisions don’t solve that problem very well, which is why the NCAA abolished the division requirement. Has any league besides the 16-league WAC ever used a pod format? It’s remarkable that it has such attraction among message board participants, given so little usage in real life.
LikeLike
The B1G [and SEC] should incorporate a quasi-promotion-and-relegation system into its scheduling, to maximize its assets. Let the best play the best. An extreme example would be to have the top-8 teams from the previous season play a round robin in the subsequent season (7 games). Then, the other 2 conference games would be against some combination of unfulfilled protected rivalries and/or schools that a given school hasn’t played, recently. Here’s how the 2022 schedule would look, using USC’s and UCLA’s 2021 PAC records:
FIRST DIVISION (with 2021 conference records in parentheses)
[The divisions are for scheduling purposes, only. Each of the 8 schools plays the other 7 schools, once. Thus, there would be no divisions, when viewing the 2022 conference standings.]
Michigan (8-1)
Ohio State (8-1)
Iowa (7-2)
Michigan State (7-2)
Wisconsin (6-3)
Minnesota (6-3)
Purdue (6-3)
UCLA (6-3)
SECOND DIVISION
Penn State (4-5)
Illinois (4-5)
USC (3-6)
Maryland (3-6)
Rutgers (2-7)
Nebraska (1-8)
Northwestern (1-8)
Indiana (0-9)
Protected rivalries would thus have to be limited to 1 or 2 [or 3, if expanding to 10 conference games]. Limiting to one protected rivalry would be as follows:
Michigan-Ohio State
*Iowa-Nebraska
*Michigan State-Penn State
Wisconsin-Minnesota
*Purdue-Indiana
*UCLA-USC
Illinois-Northwestern
Maryland-Rutgers
*Denotes matches that would need to be scheduled, as one of the two extra games, in addition to the 7 round robin matches.
This will help to maximize marquee match-ups, while giving the second-division schools a slight competitive boost, similar to the NFL scheduling format.
A similar mechanism could be used, if dividing the conference into four, 4-team pods, based upon the previous season’s standings. This would be more similar to the NFL, with each pod playing a round robin (3 games). Then, the top team in each pod would play the top team in the other 3 pods (3 games), etc. Finally, the other 3 conference games would be filled by protected rivalries and/or by maximum length since given schools have played each other.
LikeLike
Promotion/relegation makes more sense when the B10 expands to 24 academic powerhouses that rival the Ivy League in academic prowess and alumni power. Then you can have 3 tiers of 8. 7 games in the round-robin. 2 games against protected rivals (or secondary rivals).
The one big problem I see is that unlike soccer, which allows you to play everyone HaH in a round-robin, it may be difficult to keep the home and away sequence without messing it up.
LikeLike
I don’t think we’ll ever see promotion/relegation in college sports in terms of year-to-year on-the-field performance. It’s honestly headed the opposite direction where the biggest brands want even more guarantees. It’s really about *separation* entirely as opposed to promotion/relegation. (The proposed Super League in soccer last year that ended up getting quashed shows how the biggest brands in every sport across the world are thinking.)
What wouldn’t shock me is a flex game near the end of the year based on records (similar to what the Big Ten had in the final week of the shortened 2020 season) or a system similar to the NFL where some games are matched up based on the records from the previous season.
(As a reminder, the NFL has everyone play their division rivals home-and-home annually, rotate playing the teams in each division in their home conference every 3 years, rotate playing the teams in each division in the opposite conference every 4 years, and then have the balance of the matchups based on the records from the prior year.)
LikeLike
We have pro/rel in the form of realignment
LikeLike
I am learning to never say never, but this model has a lot of problems. Conferences want their best teams undefeated. That means they have to play the bottom-feeders sometimes. Comparisons to the NFL break down because the pros have a longer playoff cycle than the colleges are (so far) willing to consider.
Anyhow, what you are proposing is not true promotion/relegation. True relegation would mean the worst teams are not in the league the following year and are not eligible for its championship. In your model, Penn State would still be in the league—they’d just get an easier schedule because of their unusually bad season in 2021.
I think there would be a lot of complaints if a second division team won the Big Ten because they played an abnormally weak schedule in which they missed all of the big boys. That isn’t a problem in the NFL because a good record with a weak schedule doesn’t win anything concrete except a playoff berth.
I don’t believe they would give up Michigan–MSU as an annual game. They happen to play in your model because both had a good year in 2021, but you aren’t locking it in.
LikeLike
Yes, I doubt that we will ever have true promotion-and-relegation, as much as that would be fun. But, promotion-and-relegation in scheduling gets at that idea of separation, with more games between kings and barons. It also incorporates the progressive scheduling element that the NFL uses. [Of course, only 3 out of 17 NFL games are based upon division ranking from the previous season.] The degree of separation, as well as its elasticity, depends upon the design. Using only last year’s conference records ensures a high degree of elasticity, where schools may be promoted-or-relegated rather often. Alternatively, multi-year [or total, historic conference Win%!?!] records could be used. For example, here’s how the 4-year Win% would look:
FIRST DIVISION
Ohio State 0.939
Michigan 0.735
Iowa 0.667
Wisconsin 0.636
Penn State 0.583
Minnesota 0.559
Michigan State 0.529
USC or UCLA [by coin flip]
SECOND DIVISION
USC/UCLA
Purdue 0.485
Northwestern 0.457
Indiana 0.382
Illinois 0.343
Nebraska 0.286
Maryland 0.281
Rutgers 0.139
Schools would be promoted/relegated, by 4-year rolling Win%. Thus, Purdue and Northwestern – and USC and UCLA – fans would have reason for hope that a good year in 2022 might yield games against first division teams, in 2023, while Penn State, Minnesota, and Michigan State may be worried about relegation.
Incorporating promotion-and-relegation into scheduling would enhance the strength-of-schedule for the first division teams, which will presumably be a factor in any future at-large bids to the CFP, assuming that it survives and does not include automatic bids. And, while there may be angst if a second division team finishes the regular season with the best- or second-best record, there would still be a conference championship game to be played.
LikeLike
mstinebrink,
The B10 tried that with the parity-based scheduling that they dropped after a few years.
E1 = OSU, MI, PSU
E2 = MSU, UMD, RU
E3 = IN
W1 = NE, WI, IA
W2 = NW, IL, MN
W3 = PU
Everyone had 1 locked cross-over opponent from their same tier (OSU/NE, MI/WI, PSU/IA, …, IN/PU), played 1 of the 3 on the other tier (OSU vs NW, IL, or MN), and played 1 of the remaining 3 (OSU vs WI, IA, or PU). After 6 years (a cycle), the locked teams rotate. After 18 years, the cycle is complete.
The problem is that you risk hurting your brands if you bias the SOS too much. NE didn’t enjoy getting OSU every year, and other schools didn’t like missing out on the big brands.
As for relegation/promotion, I don’t think you’ll ever see it in the US as the financial structure doesn’t support it. Maybe you could have voluntary tiers.
LikeLike
Brian, not only did the B1G not try “that” (i.e. promotion-and-relegation in scheduling), they didn’t give parity-based scheduling a real try, either. Regardless, I can certainly see why the peasants wouldn’t like this. But, as a fan, give me more kings and barons, and remind the peasants that the B1G revenue will continue to be evenly distributed. A little competition is healthy; that’s kinda the point of this whole idea of intercollegiate athletics, no?
LikeLike
mstinebrink,
It was what you described – tiers with the top teams playing each other more. Since we had divisions, it’s was as close as possible to your system. It’s not like the big 6 EPL clubs only play each other every season either.
The B10 tried it, but too many people complained and it didn’t pay enough extra to put up with it. I agree they could’ve stuck with it longer, but nobody was happy. If nobody likes it, and the kings start to suffer nationally from extra losses, it defeats most of the purpose.
Fans don’t get fired for losing big games, and they don’t get injured from repeatedly playing in them. That’s why the powers that be don’t listen to the fans about this. NFL schedules lead to 0.500 teams – CFB isn’t built around that. Besides, why should teams get a permanent easy path to a title? Isn’t it supposed to be a level playing field?
We already have “a little” competition. The East provides 3 king/king games and 3 king/prince games every year. The West provides 3 prince/prince games. And then those teams have their crossover games. That’s plenty of big games, and it doesn’t include the OOC games.
LikeLike
Agreed. Some people want more competition; some less. The latter would’ve denied entry to USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
I tend to think Pods that are well constructed offer more reliable scheduling and travel benefits (especially for fans), and helps to instill more compelling rivalries that put maximum butts in seats + eyeballs on tv/streaming platforms.
For all intents and purposes, the NFL uses a Pod approach (as do other pro leagues). Hard to imagine the NFL not using Pods, right? As college football takes on a more pro-level look, maximizing regional rivalries will strengthen the overall product (and $).
The current fad of having “permanent partners” addresses issues with odd conference sizes, as well geographic issues (like USC/UCLA will have). Your point is well taken that this allows better scheduling and more frequent games between conference members.
But for all the reasons stated above, I think we’ll always have people proposing Pods. It certainly makes for more interesting & lively blogs LOL.
LikeLike
Put simply: If done right, Pods are more compelling and marketable than permanent partners.
3+6+6 just seems to generate more interest (in every respect) to it than 1+7+7. But maybe that’s just perception.
LikeLike
Of course I do understand why message board participants debate this. During the long offseason when no games are played, you have got to talk about something. But none of the leagues that have weighed in are known to be considering pods, and that ought to tell you something.
I tend to think Pods that are well constructed offer more reliable scheduling and travel benefits (especially for fans), and helps to instill more compelling rivalries that put maximum butts in seats + eyeballs on tv/streaming platforms.
The pods fans come up with usually have a lot of random locked games that make no sense. When conferences try to manufacture rivalries that didn’t arise organically, they often crap out. It is hard to tell fans what to love. It is no coincidence that the NCAA just voted to abolish divisions.
LikeLike
As I understand it, the contract between Notre Dame and the ACC requires that if Notre Dame joins a football conference it must be the ACC.
What are the ramifications of that? How much money would that involve to avoid? Since it is not a GOR, it is obviously much less than it would be. What if ND were willing to litigate the question? Would the ACC take the chance of losing and perhaps seeing the entire GOR explode and, with it, the league?
Obviously under the GOR, ND would owe a payout for basketball and the Olympic sports, but that could not be a huge amount.
LikeLike
Bernie: “As I understand it, the contract between Notre Dame and the ACC requires that if Notre Dame joins a football conference it must be the ACC.”
ND may have a little wiggle room because the ACC changed membership after signing the deal in 2013. Maryland joined the B1G in 2014 and was replaced with academic skank Louisville.
LikeLike
ND would have two separate costs of leaving the ACC. One is the grant of rights, which I agree would be manageable, since it excludes football. The other is the conference exit fee. I haven’t seen an estimate of what that is, but schools pay exit fees all the time, so I am guessing that is manageable too.
There are conference switches almost every year, and I don’t remember the last time one of them went to litigation. The conference and the departing school always seem to settle it somehow without resorting to that.
ND may have a little wiggle room because the ACC changed membership after signing the deal in 2013.
The 2013 GoR expired in 2027. The ACC would be elated if that were still in effect. They unwisely extended it for another decade, and that was after Maryland left. So if there is any wiggle room, that ain’t it.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t surprise me to find out one of those schools is East Carolina.
LikeLike
Wilner’s latest on what the Big 12 and PAC can do.
LikeLike
Can you summarize? It is behind a paywall.
LikeLike
This looks like the same article without paywall. Some interesting thoughts.
LikeLike
Sure. Nothing we are not already discussing but basically various mergers and raid options.
We don’t doubt the Four Corners schools (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah) are exploring a move to the Big 12 — a step that would leave the Pac-12 with six members and spur its extinction. But that move doesn’t make complete sense for ESPN’s chessboard.
[snip]
an outright merger with the Big 12 makes sense competitively and geographically, albeit less so academically and politically (especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe vs. Wade).
[snip]
Also, don’t discount the prospect of the Pac-12 using Oregon and Washington — in conjunction with clandestine approval by ESPN — to attempt a raid of the best six programs in the Big 12.
In this moment of weakness, that would be the ultimate power move.
LikeLike
Dodd now reporting the four corners schools talking with the Big 12.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-realignment-news-notre-dame-on-deck-pac-12-big-12-could-merge-sec-vs-big-ten-playoff/
he Big 12 is involved in deep discussions to add multiple Pac-12 programs as a way to shore up its membership in the wake of the USC and UCLA defection to the Big Ten, sources tell CBS Sports. At least four teams are being considered with the potential for the Big 12 to add more as realignment continues to shake out.
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah were mentioned specifically as the teams being targeted by the Big 12, sources tell CBS Sports. There is also consideration of adding Oregon and Washington to make the Big 12 an 18-team league, the largest in the FBS.
LikeLike
What about Stanford/Cal? Do they get left out entirely? That would be crazy.
LikeLike
The Big XII is probably the least concerned about academics as any major conference — look at the motley assortment of schools it has. For their uses, Stanford and Cal might be irrelevant, strange as that seems to write.
LikeLike
One thing I’ve pondered as we wait the next round of moves is whether any school’s brand–other than Notre Dame–really adds enough value on the football side to be worth the SEC or B1G going after. The home run additions, Texas and OU to the SEC and USC and UCLA to the B1G, offered a football brand on par with the top in either conference, big markets, and academic credentials above the respective conference medians.
The thing we haven’t really seen yet concerns consolidation on the basketball side of the ledger. The NCAA Tournament TV deals will pay more than $1 Billion a year starting in 2025. With talk of the largest conferences wanting to break away from the NCAA, would the biggest basketball brands suddenly have more allure so that the megaconferences could drive discussion on a separate basketball tournament to chip at the massive $1 Billion plus per year number paid by the NCAA? Put another way, if you have Kansas in the B1G along with UCLA, Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan; and UNC and Duke in the SEC along with Kentucky, those conferences could deprive the NCAA tournament of legitimacy if they were just to schedule their own separate tournament given the strength of the brands.
LikeLike
There are a couple of differences in basketball. The NCAA tournament earns a billion a year, but that’s spread across all of Division I. In football, the Big Ten is about to earn a billion dollars all by itself. Basketball success is not concentrated in just a couple of conferences, as it is in football.
Seventeen of the last 20 AP national champs in football were teams that are now, or will soon be, in the SEC or Big Ten. Over the same period, those schools won just 3 basketball championships. Villanova won it twice, and the runners-up included Gonzaga (2x), Butler (2x), and Memphis.
So, the SEC and Big Ten could stage their own private football playoff, and argue credibly that the best team is almost certainly one of their members. They can’t do that in basketball. A tournament that leaves out so many of the premier schools wouldn’t be worth a billion anymore.
LikeLike
Kansas has been available multiple times and no one has come calling even though it is one of the top 3-4 basketball brands in the country. They don’t bring enough money to make whole the rest of the Big Ten or SEC. Maybe UNC-Duke brings enough with it being an untouched market and state for both the Big Ten and SEC but not sure if there is any other basketball property is worth adding. I am not even sure that there is any other football property worth adding for either conference not named Notre Dame. Does Florida State or Clemson significantly add enough money to the SEC? I think the giant superconference prediction of 24 schools or more for either the SEC or Big Ten may not come to pass.
LikeLike
Unless we get ND + “X”, it’s hard to justify any expansion above 16. No other school would bring enough money to earn its keep.
Also 16 works out very nicely for scheduling. Three annual rivals for each team and then six of the remaining 12 one year, the other six the next in a 3-6-6 format. Each school would play every other team in the conference at a minimum of every two years.
LikeLike
I agree with your math, although historically the conference has kept the same schedule two years at a time. This allows a home-and-home series with your non-locked games, before you cycle through the next group. An athlete staying 4 years would therefore see every campus before he graduates. (That is close to the system the Big Ten has now.)
I know 3 locked games is the simplest scheduling system to explain, but in a 16-team league it is hard to come up with more than one locked game for USC/UCLA that doesn’t feel like it was totally random. There is no reason not to just rotate them through the rest of the league equally, aside of course from their annual game with each other.
Nebraska is the closest to California geographically, but it is not SO much closer to justify locking that game above all others.
LikeLike
Well, no scheduling system is perfect but for 16 schools and a nine-game conference schedule, 3-6-6 seems optimal. Using your worst case scenario of three annual opponents for newcomers USC and Cal, they would actually add some nice balance to our East-heavy Big Ten.
USC could be paired with UCLA, fellow newcomer Nebraska and quasi-heavyweight Wisconsin. UCLA could match up with USC, Iowa and fellow academic notable Illinois. Those four current Big-Tenners would still have plenty of room left in their pairing for their primary rivals:
Illinois – UCLA, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa – UCLA, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska – USC, Iowa. Minnesota
Wisconsin – USC, Minnesota, Iowa
Of course this could be tweaked with substitutions of Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue or Indiana if desired. I imagine that several Big Ten schools would like to have annual games with USC or UCLA.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think the locked games would be very intentional with USC and UCLA – big brands for 10 years to maximize money and ease the transition. After 10 years, they would reconsider.
USC – UCLA, OSU, NE
UCLA – USC, MI, PSU
NE – USC, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – NE, IA, WI
WI – IA, MN, NW
NW – IL, WI, RU
IL – NW, PU, IN
PU – IN, IL, UMD
IN – PU, MSU, IL
MSU – MI, IN, UMD
MI – OSU, MSU, UCLA
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
PSU – OSU, RU, UCLA
RU – PSU, UMD, NW
UMD – RU, MSU, IL
LikeLike
Florida State and Clemson make lots of sense for the SEC to protect them from being “flanked”. The Big 12 would love to plant a flag in northern Florida and with Clemson. With two schools in FL (UCF and USF), the Big 12 would be a force in Florida.
For that matter, if FSU were suddenly available, the B1G would have to look at the Seminoles. FSU is not in the AAU and the culture is very southern, so I do not think that it could or would work, but I am sure that the B1G would like a foothold in Florida, since they are closed out of Texas.
I believe that the addition of UMd and RU was at least partially a defensive decision by Delany to grab the DC to NYC corridor, before it dawned on the ACC that they left a big gap by missing the NJ/NY market.. Of course, taking UMd alone would not plug the gap for the B1G, so RU went along for the very happy ride. That is analogous to the SEC taking FSU and Clemson.
LikeLike
FSU is in FL and in a recruiting hotbed, but except for that, they are pretty close to UO and UNL. That is, if they are down in football, they aren’t adding much.
In fact, I believe they are the southern school that Barry Alvarez said the B10 once rejected due to academics.
The B10 doesn’t absolutely need to physically be in FL, BTW (any more than the SEC needs to physically be in CA).
LikeLike
Wilner reporting on PAC-ACC alliance. Nothing much of note other than this quote
“I can tell you the presidents of each league would love to be academically aligned with the other,’’ a source noted.
LikeLike
The Alliance Strikes Back!?! PAC completes “hostile” takeover of ACC, or vice versa. Call it The Big PACClantic! Solves a lot of problems, including dissolution of the ACC GOR and an escape from their below-market deal, correct???
LikeLike
As a Big Ten alum, who doesn’t want to see all these schools made irrelevant, I think it would be amusing for the Big 10 and SEC to stop expanding at this point, confidently assert that their teams are all that matter and host their own championships, then have the AP award Oregon a national championship one year and Oklahoma State the next, as these teams go undefeated in their weakened conferences.
LikeLike
New Canzano:
– Oregon is exploring both the Big Ten and SEC. Phil Knight wants the Big Ten.
– The four corners are not meeting with Big 12
– Former Fox Sports exec says Boise St is worth 8 million in TV money to the PAC
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-ducks-make-a-wish?sd=pf
LikeLike
What Phil Knight wants is perhaps the least relevant expansion criterion of all time. It is nice to know that Oregon is “exploring” the Big Ten and the SEC. I would be more impressed if the Big Ten and SEC were exploring Oregon.
Conference expansion is a generational decision. Phil Knight is 84. Why would the Big Ten or SEC care what he thinks? I know Canzano needs material, but this is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Phil Knight is 84. Why would the Big Ten or SEC care what he thinks?
Pretty much everyone involved in expansion decisions will take a call from Phil. Nike sponsorship money is no joke. Nike is paying MLB 100 million a year (30 teams) and both the NFL and NBA 125 million (32 teams) a year. For comparisons sake (I am not convinced its apples to apples) Nike is paying Ohio St ~17 million a year. I’m sure he could easily throw out a bid to be come the official apparel sponsor of the Big Ten that would get noticed. A 500 million a year offer (Nike revenue is 37.4 Billion) to a 20 team Big Ten (25 per, existing Adidas and UA contracts would have to be waited out) would get anyone’s attention. Phil may not be around for the end of the contract (which might make him more likely to overbid) but saving Oregon football might be one of those legacy projects he seems to be interested in.
LikeLike
Oh sure, you take the call. Talk is free. I agree that 500 million a year — half again as much as the whole TV deal — would probably buy Oregon’s way into the Big Ten. But that figure is outrageous. Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, USC, and UCLA are Nike teams already. Is Phil willing to pay for them twice?
LikeLike
@Marc –
But that figure is outrageous. Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, USC, and UCLA are Nike teams already. Is Phil willing to pay for them twice?
I was implying that the (hypothetical) $25 million per team would replace any existing deals and would be for pooled rights for the entire conference. It was just illustrative what Phil could do with cash to influence the powers that be. Nike would most likely be overbidding, its not like it will tank the stock or anything. I just picked a round number, but for Ohio St it would only be about 50% more (another 8 million). In a P2 world, that might not be too far off the mark of what Ohio St is worth since a lot of these deals were signed in the mid 2010s and ran until 2030ish. It would be worth double Michigan’s current Nike contract, and be triple Penn St’s (nearly over) Nike deal. UCLA used to have the largest deal at 19+ million with UA before UA broke the deal, now they’re at ~8 million with Nike. Nebraska (Adidas), Maryland, Northwestern, and Wisconsin (UA) have contracts that will need to be waited out.
On the other hand, he just might decide to not bid on Big Ten contracts anymore (a cut off nose to spite face move). The UCLA value plummeted (I’m assuming Adidas didn’t bid aggressively after UCLA rejected their initial ~$18 million bid for UA’s bid) with out anyone to bid against Nike.
LikeLike
Nike is a publicly traded company and the board of directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. So no, something like some crazy overbidding won’t happen without drawing lawsuits.
Now, Phil Knight could personally donate millions to B10 schools to buy UO a seat, I suppose, though for a 100-year decision, the price tag is likely astronomical.
LikeLike
@Richard –
Nike is a publicly traded company and the board of directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. So no, something like some crazy overbidding won’t happen without drawing lawsuits.
I just picked a round number to show how Phil could use Nike influence the decision. $400 million ($20 million x 20 schools) is very near the market rate that UCLA got in 2016 (yes, UA ran away from it, but Adidas was offering $18 million) so I don’t think anything in the $20-25 million range is going to trigger lawsuits.
LikeLike
Richard,
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052516/top-4-nike-shareholders-nke.asp
For all practical purposes, Phil Knight and his family control Nike. They control 97% of the class A stock, and thus select 9 of the 12 board members. It doesn’t mean they can do just anything, but they have a lot of leeway. If they can make any sort of business case for it, they can make it happen.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, the talk inside of UVA circles allegedly in the know has been the following:
– UVA/UNC/Duke leaderships are sticking together (until they aren’t)
– The top choice is a continued viable ACC (“viable” = able to support all athletics via funding secured by a revenue deal)
– There is some pessimism on Grant of Rights given (1) someone may challenge it despite the huge costs, and (2) uncertainties of how a judge would rule given changes in the landscape
– If push came to shove, UVA/UNC/Duke would prefer the B1G over the SEC
– B1G will continue expanding as long as each new school is value-add with well-rounded athletics departments/programs
Following UMD’s switch in 2014, the discussion then was that B1G was interested in UVA/UNC/Ga Tech – emphasis on new markets (like Rutgers). Allegedly Stanford and OR are top choices.
LikeLike
I wonder, would the Big Ten actually take UNC/Duke/Virginia? And then Georgia Tech too? They seemingly don’t even have room for Oregon or Washington or Stanford. Seems like they’re limited on spots. So let’s say they only have room for 1 or 2? Can the SEC entice that trio by offering all three at once? Would that work? Or are they against the SEC in principle?
LikeLike
@Andy – It’s a good point. I think the Big Ten would take the UNC/Duke combo in all circumstances. (I know that it isn’t necessarily a pure football brand move that we’ve generally seen in conference realignment, but the State of North Carolina is particularly valuable territory because of its position on the line of the Big Ten and SEC core footprints.)
Anyone else outside of a Notre Dame-level brand name, though, may not move the needle enough for the Big Ten anymore. A week ago, I would have said that there wouldn’t be a question that the Big Ten would take UVA, Georgia Tech, Cal, Stanford, Washington and/or Oregon if any of them approached the league. The financials just changed so drastically when they added the whales of USC and UCLA from the get go, though. It was already a tough financial bar for a school to just breakeven for the Big Ten expansion prior to last week… and now it’s a legit mountain.
LikeLike
The further scuttlebutt:
– Of the three, UNC would be the primary choice “in this scenario” but that Virginia & Duke are welcome too.
– There is no end to B1G expansion; they’re willing to go to 30 schools as long as each new addition is a value-add.
Agreed with Sir Frank. This seems as if money (and conference payouts) is an endless supply. At some point fiscal reality sets in, expansion hits a saturation point, and it no longer makes sense for a conference to add more schools.
Unless the B1G has grand designs on becoming the next NCAA or something that’s not entirely driven by profit.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine a scenario where the Big Ten could get to 30 (meaning adding 14 additional schools) and the average payout per school wouldn’t go down substantially.
Even 24 seems like a stretch, honestly. 30 seems downright impossible.
20, yes, that could maybe work. But then you definitely don’t have room for UNC, Duke, and Virginia.
LikeLike
There are about 100 snippets of scuttlebutt floating around, many of them mutually incompatible. During past expansion frenzies, maybe 1 out of 25 was accurate. Like Andy, I cannot imagine there are 14 more schools that add enough value.
LikeLike
Andy,
It depends which direction(s) the B10 expands. It could go east with those 3 + ND and stop at 20. It could go west + ND and stop at 20. It could go both directions + ND and stop at 20. Any of those could work. 24 would be tougher financially, but possible as long as they all come when ND does.
LikeLike
20 seems very possible. 24 seems very unlikely, but at least slightly possible. 30… no, that does not seem possible.
LikeLike
Andy,
How is the B10 any more limited for spots than the SEC? Both are at 16, and both would make room for ND (and any required partner(s)).
Part of the answer to your first question depends on what ND tells the B10. I believe the B10 would consider finishing the eastern expansion to UVA, UNC and Duke. I doubt GT because they are so weak in their own market, and GA is so clearly SEC territory, especially since the B10 just added the #2 market. But GT is possible.
It sounds like the LA schools don’t want other western schools, and it would certainly reduce some travel headaches to not add UW and UO or the Bay area schools.
But the real question is: “What is the maximum size the presidents will accept?” 18? 20? 24? Until we know that, we have no idea how much room is left.
LikeLike
What is the maximum size the presidents will accept?” 18? 20? 24? Until we know that, we have no idea how much room is left.
Although the presidents must approve any expansion, I doubt they have a strong feeling on a particular number.
The Pac-12 and ACC are interesting case studies in how conferences work. Both are in horrendous media deals, and I don’t think their presidents are materially less intelligent than those in the Big Ten. Rather: People who worked for them, and who were entrusted to run the numbers, presented plausible-looking spreadsheets that they ratified—at huge cost.
Now, USC+UCLA might be no-brainers, but there might never again be an expansion so obvious unless it is Notre Dame. You want to hope that whoever does spreadsheets for Kevin Warren is as good at it as Jim Delany was. (This assumes you view expansion as primarily a financial tactic, the only thing Jim Delany cared about.)
LikeLike
Marc,
The B10 and SEC commissioners have built in advantages when negotiating TV deals – they have the largest, most fervent fan bases. And they have a lot of large markets now.
That said, Larry Scott screwed up the P12N deal in my opinion. The ACC got more money and their much wanted ACCN by agreeing to the ESPN deal. It’s undervalued now, but the ACC might have fragmented before if they didn’t sign it. They were hoping the ACCN might be a game changer, or that the landscape would change to be more favorable to them. So far, it hasn’t worked out. But the B12 lost UT and OU and the P12 lost USC and UCLA, while the ACC lost nobody. Maybe the security was worth it?
LikeLike
I doubt the SEC would go over 20 either. I don’t see them taking Pac 12 schools, and probably not Big 12 schools either. That just leaves the ACC and there aren’t that many that the SEC would even want. UNC, FSU, yes. Clemson, probably. Virginia, probably. Duke? Maybe. Virginia Tech? Maybe. Miami? Probably not. NC State, that one is borderline. Other than that there really aren’t any. I don’t see them adding more than 4 of them. Maybe only 2.
LikeLike
I actually think Clemson should be a bit nervous. They have been incredibly successful in the past decade but I’m not sure they are a lock for the SEC which already has the flagship in SC. You’re not gaining any new markets or recruiting territory. Not saying it would not be a worthwhile football addition, but I question how much value the SEC could extract from Clemson. Whereas FSU or FSU + Miami locks up FL.
LikeLike
@startupsandheismans: Indeed, that is why Clemson grant of rights. Nobody could be sure of an SEC invite.
LikeLike
I have been contemplating turning this into a full post, but news is so fast moving out there right now that I put out this blue sky proposal for the Pac-12 to invite all of the ACC schools (for reasons explained in the thread about why it would be structured that way, particularly about the ACC dissolving and terminating its ESPN contract):
There are some other stories coming out about a potential Pac-12/ACC alliance that are a bit less drastic than this proposal, but the overall point is that if the Pac-12 (10?) isn’t losing anyone else, its most natural partner would be to align with the ACC as opposed to the Big 12 or expanding with MWC schools.
LikeLike
Frank,
The GOR is the only thing holding the ACC together. Why would they risk dissolving it? The most desirable schools might easily choose to escape, though I believe the old core (UNC, etc.) would prefer to make the ACC work if they could. I also don’t think ESPN’s lawyers would let this happen without a huge fight, as it seems like a transparent attempt to escape a contract.
LikeLike
Isn’t it true that the big fish always eats the little fish, in conference realignment? If so, isn’t the ACC the bigger fish? Regardless, does it matter who eats who, if the objective is partially to blow-up the ACC GOR and renegotiate? This seems like a win for all ACC and PAC members, even if up to 8 schools bolt for B1Ger/SECier pastures. It’s an obvious win, if you get a B1G/SECy invite, and arguably good for all others, who gain stability and clear upper-middleclass staus, along with cultural/academic comfort. Then, the new PACC could backfill from the Big XII, as they see fit. Is Notre Dame okay with football-only membership in The BXII PACClantic, where they’re the only king or baron left outside of the B1G/SEC, but also in a coast-to-coast conference with their own TV deal and “independence?” Perhaps obviously, that depends upon playoff access. This seems like a plausible, alternate, semi-stable state that is short of the purportedly inevitable AFL/NFL end game. Would the B1G/SEC have the political power to lockout The BXII PACClantic from their AFL/NFL playoffs? Perhaps less likely, would the B1G see benefit in helping to restore this alliance, for scheduling purposes and/or academic cooperation? Regardless, The BXII PACClantic seems like a potential pressure release valve.
LikeLike
As someone very strongly in the Stanford/Oregon to B1G camp (#TeamCardinal #TeamPhil) this Pete Thamel quote confirms what I’ve been afraid of. That USC/UCLA wants the BIG all to themselves regarding additional PAC12 adds:
“Any cries for Oregon and Washington in the Big Ten should be tempered by the reality that if USC and UCLA wanted them there in the first place, they’d probably be there. Those schools appear to value owning Los Angeles and the rich recruiting market much more. They have a monopoly on the West Coast. Why invite in your top competition?”
LikeLike
Has anyone seen credible reports regarding the number of conference games the B1G is shopping in the next media rights deal? I’ve seen a lot of speculation about future scheduling formats after the addition of USC and UCLA, but no direct references to the number of conference games the league intends to play. Do they stick with 9, drop to 8, or go big with 10?
LikeLike
@Bob – I’d be shocked if it’s anything other than 9 conference games. It was already a virtual guarantee prior to expansion and unquestionably necessary post-expansion. Allowing each school at least one P5 non-conference game per year still matters, particularly since the Big Ten is now getting the USC-ND game 50% of the time. (Believe me that the Big Ten doesn’t want that rivalry to go away regardless of whether Notre Dame joins the league or not.)
LikeLike
@Frank – As a Penn State alum I understand the current model of 7 home games with 2 buy games and 1 home-home P5 game. However, with the B1G and SEC expansions aren’t we getting close to P2 instead of P5? Other than USC-ND and Iowa-Iowa St there aren’t many must have match ups. We may reach a tipping point soon where the extra conference games have more value than any non-ND or non-SEC OOC matchups. My guess is B1G stays at 9 until after the SEC sorts out the UT/OU additions and the next CFB playoff expansion vote.
LikeLike
Ten is seriously problematic, because the schools all want 7 home games. If you are locked into 5-and-5 within the conference, then your remaining home games can only be lesser opponents who don’t insist on a return date. That is a problem not just for USC but also Iowa, which wants to (or has to) play Iowa State every year.
I don’t see them ever playing 8 again — that’s just too much valuable inventory they would be giving up. Nine is the sweet spot, as it allows teams to schedule high-profile non-conference opponents while getting seven home games most of the time.
LikeLike
I agree 7 home games makes sense but it is somewhat counter intuitive to add all these teams to the conference and then insist on playing other teams on the road. Especially true if you go above 16 teams. Ideally, to me, I’d prefer to maximize the number of conference games and to find a way to get rid of the crappy Michigan vs. E. Michigan or Wisconsin vs. Kent St. type games that are no interest blowouts on TV…which I think you’ll keep with the 9 game conference schedule. I also don’t care if someone wants to play Iowa State and ND has a solution if they really care about playing USC.
LikeLike
Well, the caring of those schools matter more than your non-caring.
And those buy games exist because the schools with massive stadiums can still fill them (and earn up to $5-10mm each) for those games.
LikeLike
I guess the open question I have is what makes for more money, the gate income of the home game vs. a MAC team minus what you pay them vs. the tv. revenue for a bigger and better game? Is this calculation changing into the future?
Or is it just donors and fans who want to see their team more often in person, vs. the income from millions of tv viewers.
I know that Iowa cares about Iowa St. and USC cares about ND, but a majority of big ten schools don’t have a major non-conference rival game that they need to schedule every year. If the Big XII gets the tv rights to Iowa/Iowa St. every other year, doesn’t this shrink the tv money for the big ten as a whole and shrink the money an equivalent team, like Wisc, without the traditional non-con rival, would get?
I get that OSU/Oregon was a good game, but couldn’t OSU/Iowa or OSU/Wisconsin, 2 games we didn’t get last year do just as well or better compared to splitting the pie with Oregon.
LikeLike
Steve,
The TV money is schedule-independent beyond numbers of games because there is no guarantee who schools will choose to play. Buy games give schools the chance to bring donors back to campus, to make millions in ticket and gear sales, but also to bolster the local economy. Many small businesses in college towns live or die based on CFB weekend revenues. A home game is worth around $10M (gross) to OSU, but 100,000+ people in Columbus for a game is worth tens of millions to the local economy (gas, restaurants, hotels, shops, …).
And no, OOC games have a special appeal because they are unusual. OSU/UO gets a larger national audience than OSU/WI (all rankings being equal) because OSU doesn’t play UO regularly. The OSU/ND ratings will be huge this year and next year because OSU and ND rarely play. Besides, schools schedule home and homes because they want to reach into certain parts of the country – for recruits, or for alumni, or for future students.
LikeLike
Bob,
For now, you have to assume 9 games. I think long term the move will be to 10 games if there are super-conferences. Get 2 G5 buy games, 5 home and 5 road conference games, then have the conferences only play each other in the postseason. Eventually ESPN would start paying huge fees for a few neutral site games between the conferences in September to rev up the rivalry.
LikeLike
Notable: Should the B1G admit an odd number of schools an 8 or 10 game conference schedule would be required if all schools are to play an identical number of conference games.
LikeLike
That is among the reasons why conferences try to avoid odd numbers. Another is that least one team has a bye the final week of the regular season, which is undesirable for a bunch of reasons.
LikeLike
How do you dissolve the ACC without Clemson and Florida State ‘walking’ to the SEC?
LikeLike
That is obviously the biggest risk for the ACC schools. It has to be weighed against the potential ability to get out of the terrible ESPN deal that they’re locked into until 2036.
LikeLike
Couldn’t the ACC create a kind of “will and testament” along the lines of “in the event of death the rights formerly given to the ACC pass on to the Pac for (X) number of years.
Include the B12 and the BigPaclantic returns as a conference name?
It also makes up over 50% of D1 football.
LikeLike
To be clear, I mean the conference members of the ACC would sign the “will”, not the conference.
LikeLike
Perhaps the ACC would be the acquiring party, and the Pac-12 would dissolve. The PAC doesn’t have anywhere near the same kind of risk, since it’s pretty unlikely the SEC would poach any of their schools.
This solves the ACC’s problem, since their contract can be renegotiated if they add new members. It solves the Pac’s problem, since their media deal is expiring soon anyway.
LikeLike
This solves the ACC’s problem, since their contract can be renegotiated if they add new members.
I doesn’t completely solve the ACC’s problem. They can only renegotiate with ESPN. They won’t be able to have the others bid (and drive up the price) until the ESPN deal expires.
LikeLike
Just want to put this on the internet so there’s a record somewhere of where I think this is all heading in the next 5-10 years.
BIG 10:
Rutgers
Maryland
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
USC
UCLA
Notre Dame (new member)
Stanford (new member)
Oregon (new member)
Washington (new member)
UNC (new member)
UVA (new member)
Miami (new member)
Colorado (new member, could be convinced Big10 would prefer Kansas, Utah, Cal or Arizona here)
SEC:
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Miss State
LSU
Missouri
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Clemson (new member)
Florida State (new member)
Pac/Big12 Remnants Combo:
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Cal
Kansas
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Oregon State
Washington State
Iowa State
Kansas State
Baylor (maybe not, could be real problems combining with the old PAC schools)
BYU (maybe not, could be real problems combining with the old PAC schools)
Houston (not convinced about Houston)
ACC/Old Big East Combo:
Boston College
UConn
Syracuse
Pitt
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Virginia Tech
NC State
Duke
Georgia Tech
LikeLike
Yep. It’s always best to get all of your thoughts onto the internets!
LikeLike
So the Big Ten is going to 26 but the SEC is only going to 18?
LikeLike
Not going to happen, at most I ever see the difference between the two being 2 or 4 teams.
LikeLike
Canzano with another update. PAC exploring loose partnership with another conference
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-eyeing-loose-partnership?sd=pf
LikeLike
Can someone explain how UNC, UVA, or Duke add any value whatsoever to the Big Ten (or Pac-10 or SEC)? I fully appreciate how each is a great academic school, but none moves the needle in the slightest in football, which is what drives the train in conference acquisitions. Bottom line is they bring negative financial equity.
LikeLike
For B10:
1. BTN subscribers
2. Future students
3. Charlotte market
4. Hoops $
5. Finally winning a freaking title in hoops this century
6. Lacrosse – sport of the future?
7. Make ND more likely to join
8. Becoming national instead of regional
LikeLike
As a long-suffering (football-wise) UVA alum/fan, have been in wonderment at UVA (and UNC for that matter) being on so many (or at least some) lists, LOL. But the lists all point to brand names, new markets, and as you said academics.
Rutgers and UMD didn’t bring much on-the-field product either, even tho 8 years ago was a different era for conference realignment .
As for Duke, can’t tell ya. Should Jon Scheyer become the next Kevin Ollie, Duke will be the new version of UConn. It brings nothing football-wise.
LikeLike
Location, location, location.
UVA and UNC have it.
There’s 4 major growth engines in the country: Mid-atlantic, Cali/AZ, Texas, Florida-Georgia.
SEC has 2.
Big Ten had 0. Big Ten now has 1.
UNC/UVA are at the heart of the Mid-Atlantic, for demographics, recruiting, and all the rest of the reasons from Brian above, they’re going to be the first 2 targets of the Big Ten in the ACC.
Even if they don’t grow the pie financially but rather just generate an equal share; the Big Ten wants to be in that area of the country.
LikeLike
If by “growth” you mean nothing having to do with fooball. Nobody watches or cares about their football games, and from what I read basing financial projections on potential number of cable subscriptions is outdated thinking. What does “being in that area of the country” get the B1G tangibly? I just don’t see a kid in NC or VA deciding to attend Ohio State or Illinois and pay OOS tuition, who heretofore wouldn’t have done so, because those schools now play UVA or a NC school regularly. Finally, these decisions aren’t made based on non-football sports.
LikeLike
Many here simply will not accept that match-ups (not media markets) are now driving the bus.
LikeLike
I’d say viewership and willingness of fans to subscribe to streaming is the future test.
Major selling point for Sun Belt taking James Madison was that JMU had a high sign up rate for Flo or whomever had their media deal before joining.
Carriage fee economy is withering away.
OTA broadcasts (match up driven as you phrase) and consumer subscribers is what makes future so good for B1G and SEC
LikeLike
Peter Griffin,
When he says growth, he means literal population growth. The midwest is aging and very slowly growing. The number of potential college students in the footprint is trending down. Universities know this, so they’re looking for sources of future students. Some states are net receivers of students, and others are net donors (not enough good schools in-state).
Cable subscriptions are decreasing, but still a huge business among older CFB fans and bars. ESPN is in 76M households at about $10 per month for example. BTN generates about $1/mo. in the footprint (a few cents/mo. outside), and is in > 50M households.
You don’t think free advertising helps recruit future students? Do you know a better way to expose students in NC to the options the B10 schools provide? OSU has over 18,000 out of state students. Sports broadcasts are one more way to get OSU’s name out there, and maybe one of those corny ads about the school during the game will catch a students eye. Or just hearing the name enough times will make the student consider a school they wouldn’t have before. If they don’t get accepted to UNC, maybe they can get scholarships at OSU and then enjoy watching OSU crush UNC in football as revenge.
The future of hoops money is unknown. The NCAA tournament split could change. Superconferences could change it entirely. Hoops kings carry financial heft – the B10 does get paid for hoops rights too, you know.
LikeLike
Match-ups have always been big. That’s one reason why the B10 and SEC have made more money over the years – more kings and princes than the other conferences. It’s why the B10 wanted NE and USC.
Markets also matter. So do people in the footprint outside of just markets. The more passionate they are about CFB, the more they matter. It’s why the B10- wanted RU, UMD, and USC/UCLA.
The future sources of students matters, too. That’s not a concern in many areas of the country, but it is for midwestern schools.
LikeLike
Curious what (if any) role Big Ten Academic Alliance considerations play in expansion discussions?
LikeLike
None. The BTAA saves schools thousands of dollars per year and facilitates some sharing of expertise and facilities. It’s more about being cultural fits than anything vital.
LikeLike
I cannot think of an expansion decision that was made for academic reasons if the athletics revenue did not make sense.
Academics are more of an elimination criterion, e.g., Clemson will not be considered no matter what it does. But among those that pass the academic screen—of which there are many—athletics revenue is the driver.
LikeLike
Riffing on Frank’s idea of the ACC dissolving:
If the B10 then added ND, Stanford, Cal, UNC, Duke, and UVa (+ maybe GTech and UW), the B10 would absolutely cement it’s reputation as the best collection of American universities outside the Ivy League (yes, MIT, Caltech, Rice, Georgetown, WashU, Vandy, Emory would be outside, but still, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, ND, Cal, UMich, UVa, UCLA, USC rival the Ivies while UNC and Wisconsin are close).
Still, I’m not sure the financial math makes sense, though it may if you factor in the non-football aspects.
Add those schools and you would actually have more B10 grads at the top business/law/medical schools than Ivy Leagues (however you define “top”).
LikeLike
Oh, and the SEC would pick off FSU and Clemson (at the very least; possibly NCSU and VTech to enter those states and plant their flag across the entire South).
So yeah. I don’t see this happening (unless the ACC can dissolve by simple majority vote).
LikeLike
Do that and you’re adding 5 to 7 more weak football programs to the Big Ten. The academics would be great. The football would be poor. I have to imagine that would water down the money situation somewhat. If making money is the goal. If the goal is academics it’s a slam dunk.
LikeLike
Think like a university president.
Money can come in via ways other than football. For the old B10 schools, OOS students and alumni donations also matter (so expanding in to states that send a lot of students OOS and where there are a lot of B10 alums matter). Also, basketball exists.
BTW, once you get to such a big number of schools, the TV revenue would be moved only a few million each way. For instance, if the 14-school B10 was getting a $1B TV deal and adding the SoCal schools adds $200mm from the 12-team Pac’s $500mm pot (a huge number), the payout moves from only a little less than $72mm to $75mm per school.
Now, granted, if Stanford and Cal are worth $45mm each and UW $30mm (with the ACC schools in that range too) and ND at $75mm, the average would go down. Still, if ND+Stanford+Cal+UW brings in $200mm, $1.4B/20 = $70mm. If an OOS/international student pays $30K more in tuition per year, just 100 extra OOS/international students a year means 100x4x30K=$12mm/year.
And when you lock up nearly all the top academic schools that play FBS football (poor Rice), strengthening the academic brand means real dollars.
LikeLike
As I said, of academic prestige is most of the goal then it’s a slam dunk. If it’s mostly about football it’s a terrible idea.
LikeLike
It’s hard for me to believe the Big will pass on Stanford. I’m indifferent about Oregon and Washington… but Stanford’s brand would add enhance the conference’s overall prestige and identity as a new Ivy League. For the same reason I’ve always thought Virginia would be a perfect fit. I hope that materialize someday.
I think the Big and SEC do not want to exceed 20 members, if possible. I also don’t see ND moving into a conference until they absolutely have to.
LikeLike
If that’s what “thinking like a university president” means, they have not thought that way up till now in their expansion decisions.
LikeLike
Actually, they did when adding RU and UMD.
The B10 certainly didn’t add RU and UMD for their football.
LikeLike
It added them for their cable subscribers, not their professors.
LikeLike
Marc:
The B10 added UMD and RU for several reasons, actually:
1. As a source of OOS students.
2. For football recruiting grounds.
3. Placed in a metro with a lot of B10 alums.
4. They are big schools so converting those alums/residents to B10 fans does increase the B10’s TV numbers. Compare B10 TV ratings before and after adding RU and UMD. These days, the B10 stands with the SEC above everyone else in TV ratings. That was _not_ the case a decade ago.
5. BTW, the BTN still exists and still throws off cash to the B10. The logic for adding RU and UMD actually hasn’t changed.
Anyway, the B10 has the chance to (eventually) grab almost all the best American unis (academically speaking) that play FBS football (sorry, Rice; Vandy, you’ll be fine). I really think people are underrating the significance of this. There are a ton of people in this world who don’t even know the Ivy League is an athletics conference and simply believe that it’s a collection of the best unis in the US (hence why there are too many people who think Stanford is an Ivy). The B10 has the chance to enhance it’s academic cachet to a level that is close to that of the Ivies. As I noted before, a small increase of 100 OOS/international students per class (paying $30K/year more in tuition) means $12mm more revenue a year. That would more than make up for any hit in per capita TV revenue.
LikeLike
@Richard: All of those reasons for adding MD and RU, except maybe OOS students, track with my understanding—I just didn’t want to write a long post. Basically, those are all “football reasons.” They are not about getting academically better.
So far, conferences have not expanded to get better professors. I am not saying they won’t. The Big Ten cast aside its contiguous geography requirement, so they could cast anything aside. But so far they have not.
LikeLike
Er, metro with B10 alums (for fundraising opportunities) isn’t really a football reason either. It doesn’t really matter if the host school is good at football for that.
In any case, if the B10 is far-sighted, they would see the revenue opportunities of being the only collection of schools that would rival the Ivy League academically. The revenue opportunities are actually greater than being the only conference that rivals the SEC in football.
LikeLike
BTW, no other conference has expanded for academics up to now because up to now, no other conference has had the opportunity to consolidate nearly all of the top FBS academic unis in to one conference and thus rival the Ivy League in academic prestige. The B10 has the chance to do that.
LikeLike
Dodd now reporting on the loose partnership with the ACC
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-in-deep-discussions-to-add-up-to-six-pac-12-teams-after-usc-ucla-defections-to-big-ten/
LikeLike
I think this is the Dodd article you meant to link:
ACC, Pac-12 discuss ‘loose partnership’ that could include ‘championship game’ in Las Vegas
This is much less than the full merger that FTT suggested. Dodd acknowledges that this would not cure the ACC’s long-term money gap, as it would not allow them to re-open their ESPN deal. It would be better than they have.
LikeLike
Thanks. Not sure what happened there.
LikeLike
Interesting article on realignment and the future of college athletics.
https://www.bcinterruption.com/2022/7/1/23191173/big-ten-bombshell-whats-next-for-bc-and-the-acc
It’s from a Boston College perspective, but it asks some very important questions, most notably what happens if (and perhaps more realistically when) college athletes at the high level of the sport (at least in FB and probably MBB) are classified as employees (or something equivalent to them)?
The most intriguing idea would be for schools like BC, Stanford, Duke, etc. that can not and/or will not compete under such circumstances to get proactive and try forming a new conference with a different financial model.
Other questions posed are what happens in terms of Title IX if FB players become employees, can cross country conferences really be sustainable in non-revenue sports (both financially and for the athletes who still have to attend classes at some point), and could further consolidation lead to a fan insurrection like the failed European Super League?
It has more questions than answers, but still worth a read.
LikeLike
The most intriguing idea would be for schools like BC, Stanford, Duke, etc. that can not and/or will not compete under such circumstances to get proactive and try forming a new conference with a different financial model.
That’s essentially what the Ivy League did, except that it did not require forming a new conference because they had it already. As the sport evolved, they decided simply to stay rooted in the 1970s. They are not going to bowl games, but they haven’t dropped football either.
Other possibilities mentioned include: 1) The ACC or its successor muddles along as “a diminished P5” with schools like BC still in the fold; 2) BC gets into the Big Ten (yeah, right); 3) BC becomes “a glorified Temple.”
LikeLike
So if you read the history, it wasn’t so much that the Ivies proactively tried to form such a conference. At that time, they had desperately tried to stay in the top level of football, which was also why they floated the idea of adding Northwestern at the time (but they freely admitted that the chances that they’d be able to add NU was close to nil as NU would have to give up lucrative B10 revenue sharing for the poorhouse that Ivy athletics was (and still is)). Note, this was when NU was on a record-breaking losing streak, yet the Ivies thought adding NU would actually be a plus for them.
It was more that they were bad at football and didn’t have Div-1A attendence any more so were booted out of the top level by the power schools. (OK, yes, their academic standards for athletes led to them being bad at football and crappy attendance, but they didn’t actively decide to drop down).
Ironically, since that time, “Ivy” has started to become a synonym before “top tier of unis in the US” among the clueless so it’s actually worked out well for their brand.
LikeLike
“before” should be “meaning”. What stupid autocorrect.
LikeLike
It is true that the split of Division I was instigated by the power schools, not the Ivies. But once the question was called, the Ivies decided not to keep up. Heck, they didn’t even keep up with I–AA. They formed their own mini-division with additional restrictions no one else has.
Imagine a world where they bump up to 11 and 12 games when the rest of the sport does, go to playoffs or bowls when they are good enough, give athletic scholarships, and admit athletes who would qualify at Duke, Cal, Stanford, Vandy, etc..
I am not suggesting they should. They saw the direction that athletics were taking, and said no thanks.
LikeLike
As a person who somewhat follows recruiting, the interesting thing about the Ivy League is the past 10 years or so their recruiting has improved. 20-30 years ago they likely would not have made it past the first round of the FCS playoffs. Now they probably would do okay(ish). It’s not wild seeing a player grad transfer to FBS.
They’ve modified their financial assistance so that one doesn’t have to be destitute to qualify for a lot of financial assistance.
Now that model may not do much for Arkansas and Arkansas State but universities with cachet to their diploma can attract good student-athletes and be pretty competitive.
How much does it matter to Buckeye fans that they have 8 NFL draft picks and how much does it matter that whomever wears the uniform beats Michigan?
How well does the college model hold up if USFL and XFL get roots down and tell a five star high school player we can match their money and you will be training with pros and we aren’t wasting your time with classrooms and study hall and limiting how many hours you practice?
Top stars bypass college hockey, soccer and baseball and until the CBA changed they did so in basketball.
LikeLike
This is why I emphasize that for the B10, adding a school is a 100-year decision. I called UNL ND-lite in football, and I stand by that, but it turns out that when you’re ND-lite but without the academic cachet and you’re bad at football, you don’t bring much. On the otherhand, the additions of RU and UMD (and obviously USC, UCLA, and PSU) would stand the test of time. So would adding Stanford and Cal. And while I’m skeptical that UNC/Duke/UVa(/GTech) would be able to even keep the B10 TV payout the same, much less increase them, I would favor adding them too. For the B10, there will be a big benefit to being the only league that rivals the Ivy League in academics (and is far above any other DivI league) even if football goes away some day.
LikeLike
How well does the college model hold up if USFL and XFL get roots down and tell a five star high school player we can match their money and you will be training with pros and we aren’t wasting your time with classrooms and study hall and limiting how many hours you practice?
The USFL and XFL lack exposure. They will pay you and train you, but they won’t put on games anyone wants to watch. It’s like minor league baseball — a useful proving ground, but seen by very few.
Meanwhile, the major college football programs have figured out ways to make classes palatable for the kids who have no serious interest in a degree. As long as the top college programs are playing on the biggest stage, they’ll have no trouble attracting talented athletes who want the limelight.
LikeLike
I suppose exposure is why so many baseball, hockey, soccer players laugh off pro contracts to get on SECN and ESPNU instead.
Exposure is bullshit. You think NFL teams pick who to draft and who to sign watching TV?
NFL teams are covering numerous college practices. Arkansas State has scouts visiting every week in season.
The NFL doesn’t want to pay for a minor league system but they absolutely will take advantage of one.
LikeLike
The exposure that college sports provides in and of itself isn’t that relevant for prospects for the pros. The NFL and NBA will find talent no matter where they’re located.
Where the exposure does make a tangible difference is in the new world of NIL. Top football and basketball recruits, in particular, do have access to money now (at least on the up and up as opposed to under the table) to play college sports that probably extinguishes any viable threat of a mass movement of talent to the USFL or XFL (or even the G-League that is directly controlled by the NBA).
LikeLike
Sure it might be but remember college demands much more for that money than just playing. You’ve got to successfully complete 30 credit hours per year and go to mandatory study halls.
No one is leaping to alternate football until they get a track record of paying bills but Fox is an investor in USFL.
LikeLike
Exposure is real. College baseball and soccer are not comparable, because those sports get very low exposure anyway, so the athletes might as well take the money. (Nevertheless, a decent number of them do choose college.)
LikeLike
I don’t buy it.
Look at any NBA team. Couple players will have NIL deal other than union contract for playing cards and video games.
Most players get no cash just a gift card for merchandise from a shoe company.
Only upper tier players get cash money.
Most NIL deals are pure BS and actually pay to play. Players at Miami have given unfortunate quotes about offers there vs elsewhere. No one actually believes a Miami Hurricane basketball player has greater NIL value than Miami Heat players who play twice as many games before larger crowds and larger TV audiences.
LikeLike
No one actually believes a Miami Hurricane basketball player has greater NIL value than Miami Heat players who play twice as many games before larger crowds and larger TV audiences.
You’re mixing apples and oranges. Nobody has suggested that college basketball players will make NBA money in college. If the NBA drafted kids out of high school, some of the five-star players would go there, for sure. But the NBA used to allow that, and only 41 players ever did — a very low number.
I thought this was a discussion about the XFL and USFL, which are very different beasts than the NBA.
LikeLike
Nope apples to apples. When people claim exposure matters in college and base that on NIL it’s BS. Players aren’t receiving NIL money based on exposure but rather booster willingness to fund pay to play.
Even in a 100 year rumored great breakaway who believes Ohio State and Alabama will tolerate a pay to play scheme that isn’t real NIL? We’ve already heard Saban on the matter.
LikeLike
When people claim exposure matters in college and base that on NIL it’s BS.
I think you are not not understanding what is meant by “exposure.” The best athletes generally want to appear on the biggest stage, where they get national coverage and play against the best. This is why not many 5* high school basketball players go to Europe to get paid. They are better off getting trained by John Calipari or Bill Self for a year and then cashing in big. Even if NIL is zero, they are better off in college.
The USFL won’t steal many five-stars from Nick Saban or Ryan Day. People have predicted that for years. It just doesn’t work like that.
LikeLike
Going to Europe means work visas, different language, games not available to family and most offers have required two andthree year contracts foregoing one to two years of NBA.
Even in current form USFL players face more players who’ve been in NFL camp than future NFL camp players at SEC level.
Only holdback right now is proving they can pay their bills and will consider high school players.
LikeLike
Agree with Marc. These one and dones pick Kentucky or North Carolina or Duke or Kansas over an Italian league team because the exposure boosts their draft value when the NBA comes calling.
LikeLike
“I suppose exposure is why so many baseball, hockey, soccer players laugh off pro contracts to get on SECN and ESPNU instead. ”
I know you meant this sarcastically, but a projected 1st round pick just chose to withdraw from the MLB draft to attend Vanderbilt. The Vanderbilt SBNation site addressed why a major prospect would choose college (well…SEC) over MLB::
https://www.anchorofgold.com/2022/6/28/23186226/special-mail-bag-why-a-projected-1st-rounder-might-opt-to-play-college-ball-instead
LikeLike
I’m stealing this from elsewhere, it seems about right:
What I think Disney wants:
Fully bring the 10 team PAC into the ESPN family like the SEC and ACC.
PAC and ACC, Disney partners, then strip the B12 of its members. PAC gets the bigger chunk, ACC gets eastern programs.
ESPN would then have full media rights to 3 of the 4 top conferences and top college sports content in most regions.
I don’t see ACC teams moving to the SEC in this scenario – think ESPN wants to protect its locked in ACC content at current discount rates. They’ll help facilitate moves to the SEC in case of serious FOX/B1G threats but not before then.
What I think FOX wants:
The PAC picked apart by the B1G and B12. Once Notre Dame aligns with the B1G, the B1G resumes its PAC raid and the B12 gets bolstered by what’s left of the PAC, including the schools in the Mountain Time Zone.
After successfully filling out its western wing, the B1G turns its attention to the eastern seaboard – the ACC and its valuable properties, including UNC, a program the B1G has treasured for decades, since UNC alum Jim Delany ran the show in Rosemont.
The B1G’s goal is to succeed in pulling away the ACC’s jewels, but forcing Disney to spend more on them to keep them than they are worth (according to FOX’s valuations) is an acceptable alternative.
Either way, with control of the B1G and expanded B12, FOX has addressed the balance of power issue between themselves and Disney and expanded playoff discussions have to take place with the two networks at parity in major cfb.
LikeLike
If the ACC expands doesn’t that nullify the GOR since a new contract would have to be signed? If that’s the case, ESPN would be foolish to expand the ACC. They will absolutely lose big brands to the Big Ten and Fox.
LikeLike
Absolutely. If given the opportunity FSU and Clemson would vote to expand expressly for the purpose of leaving. I don’t see the ACC even contemplating this.unless Notre Dame is involved.
LikeLike
As I read the grant of rights, expansion does not nullify it. But adding members allows them to re-open negotiations with ESPN.
LikeLike
Wilner continues his series on what the PAC can do with the options for MWC/AAC/Gonzaga adds. Nothing has really changed since they last explored expansion last year, but San Diego St would almost be a lock if they went this route.
LikeLike
This pod cast is worth your time.
LikeLike
I have been a long-time proponent of 2 or 3, 24-team super conferences divided into four six-team pods. This may be the start of such a transition.
As a proud Penn Stater as both a graduate and a past faculty member, I assure you that academic stature and research opportunities – funding – are significant considerations. University presidents answer to many stakeholders but rest assured, the faculty is one of the most influential. The AAU is more than a “club” as membership adds great credibility in the pursuit of research funding. Collaboration between research universities further enhances the potential for funding – the lifeblood of the academic side of the equation.
I would like to see the B1G comprised of the following institutions:
West Pod – Cal, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, and UW
MidWest Pod – Col, Iowa, Minn, Neb, Utah, and Wis
Central Pod – Ill, Indiana, ND, NW, OSU, and Purdue
East Pod – MD, MSU, PSU, Rutgers, UM, and South Florida
Affiliates – Chicago, Johns Hopkins
I can already hear the cacophony in reaction to suggesting USF but consider this:
1. Tampa is the 12th largest TV market in the US
2. USF is the fourth largest university in Florida
3. USF is actively seeking AAU membership
4. USF research funding would rank 44/66 of the current AAU members
5. USF is in FLORIDA!
Just for fun, if and when the ACC implodes, the B1G could always add a fifth pod comprised of UVA, UNC, Duke, and GT. At that point, the B1G might have the opportunity to add a Kansas or Mizzou. I’m not a fan of a 30-team conference but my point is that the B1G will continue to have options.
LikeLike
I can already hear the cacophony in reaction to suggesting USF but consider this:
USF has the same problem Kansas does. Their administration hasn’t invested in football to capitalize on any success. They currently practice at a $4 million outdoor practice facility that opened in 2011. They are currently building a $20 million indoor facility. Since that time, Northwestern spent $260 million on their facility, Minnesota spent $190 million on facilities, and Nebraska is spending $135 million on a football building. If the administration isn’t willing to invest, why should the Big Ten.
LikeLike
A valid point. Interestingly, joining the B1G and making the requisite investments in athletic infrastructure would support USF efforts to gain AAU membership. USF is a sleeper to keep an eye on.
LikeLike
Interestingly, joining the B1G and making the requisite investments in athletic infrastructure would support USF efforts to gain AAU membership.
IMO – Football success and Big Ten membership counts very little in AAU membership. Remember, the deciding votes to throw Nebraska out of the AAU was their new Big Ten BFFs Michigan and Wisconsin.
USF is a sleeper to keep an eye on.
Any team that hasn’t been investing in football (like Kansas and USF) are going to run into some serious headwinds called NIL. Booster money that was previously spent on building bigger and better infrastructure is now being directed to players. There is only so much booster money and how its used will determine a team’s ceiling.
LikeLike
And as an aside, USF is going out for interested parties to build a new, state of the art on-campus football stadium. By certainly they lag far behind the B1G schools and more notable candidates for joining. I remember this was the knock against Penn State joining the B1G.
LikeLike
I remember this was the knock against Penn State joining the B1G.
Are these cases comparable? PSU was an elite football program and a longstanding AAU member when it joined the Big Ten. USF is not. And PSU was the #1 school in the state, not #4.
LikeLike
USF was just extensively vetted and missed the cut for a B12 invite (UCF was invited, so it was not location). If USF cannot add value to the B12 they will be a huge drag on the B1G even if they did get AAU membership.
LikeLike
Taz,
50 schools are actively seeking AAU membership. Even just among schools in FL, FSU and Miami are closer than USF to joining the AAU.
And ND would rebel at that pod. Locked games with IN, PU, IL and NW?
LikeLike
Where art thou Notre Dame?
Taking nothing away from anyone, the recent frenzy over prospects of ND joining the B1G has been striking. And somewhat reminiscent of ACC fans previously, and Big East fans before them.
In the scheme of things, one of ND’s opponents changed conferences – that’s it. I’m told I’m missing the point, there’s too much money on the table, and change is imminent.
Well, $ is important, but ND has proven time and again they’re not in it for the money. In fact, ND is already extremely wealthy. Their $23B could run their football operations for 460 years. Like UVA/UNC/Duke, they prefer a stable revenue stream to fund all their sports.
Yes, some big realignment pieces have moved, pun intended. However, there’s no real reason to think ND won’t be able to schedule games in the future, or that its CFP path has been closed.
Ex-Coach Kelly: “[I]ndependence has been something that is part of who we are in our DNA.” The polarization of college football into the P2 likely has only solidified ND’s resolve.
In this Game of Thrones, ND won’t bend its knee to any conference anytime soon.
LikeLike
The chances of ND rushing into a conference are way overrated. However, please note that their endowment is not for football.
I definitely agree that they will never have trouble putting together a schedule, and nobody is going to freeze them out of the playoff. It really comes down to how much money is worth leaving on the table.
Of course, Coach Kelly (like all Domers then) said that Independence is part of their DNA. But a lot of people say things like that—until they don’t. Prominent alumni are saying they should join the Big Ten. It might not be all of them, or even most, but it used to be nobody.
LikeLike
You’re not wrong.
Agreed on the endowment – the point is ND is not hurting nor experiencing the financial pressures that some 25% colleges are facing. And that they have different motivations then everyone else, and they’re definitely not hitting the panic button.
After the initial shock of USC/UCLA fades, and ad the new status quo settles, time will tell if those prominent alumni revert to their previous positions of devout independence.
LikeLike
ND future schedules actually has quite a few Big Tenners lined up:
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/
LikeLike
Notre Dame has passed up money before but not the tune of $40-$50 million a year. Unless the ACC renegotiates and NBC loses its mind if they re-up them, that’s a ridiculous amount of money to pass up. I am sure Notre Dame right now is seeing what NBC and a renegotiated ACC can provide them before they make any decision. They might calculate it’s an easier path to the playoffs but at some point no school can pass up that kind of monetary difference.
LikeLike
Bet they do. For a host of reasons. One potential factor is the bitter feud that has erupted between Swarbrick and Phillips over the fact the 12-team playoff proposal that Swarby and the SEC commissioner cooked up got torpedoed by the ACC. Most people think one will have to go. More importantly, independence is simply unsustainable when competing in an NIL, Super Conference world. Donors can’t come close to making up the difference, neither can NBC. The B1G covers all the bases, including fielding a traditional ND schedule. I think this happens within a year, maybe sooner. We’ll see.
LikeLike
OK, here are my annual opponent match-ups for nine conference games and 16 teams in a 3-6-6 format:
UCLA – USC, Iowa & Purdue
USC – UCLA, Nebraska & Wisconsin
Nebraska – USC, Iowa & Minnesota
Iowa – UCLA, Nebraska and Minnesota
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa & Nebraska
Wisconsin – USC, Minnesota & Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Wisconsin & Michigan
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue & Indiana
Purdue – UCLA, Indiana & Illinois
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois & Michigan State
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State & Northwestern
Michigan State – Michigan, Indiana & Rutgers
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State & Maryland
Penn State – Ohio State, Rutgers & Maryland
Rutgers – Penn State, Maryland & Michigan State
Maryland – Penn State, Rutgers & Ohio State
LikeLike
Brian had a proposal (search upthread) that I think made more sense. Go big or go home. He locked:
USC – UCLA, OSU, NE
UCLA – USC, MI, PSU
(etc.)
I cannot imagine that you add UCLA, and then lock them into annual games with Purdue. Why in God’s name would you do that?
LikeLike
“USC – UCLA, OSU, NE
UCLA – USC, MI, PSU
I cannot imagine that you add UCLA, and then lock them into annual games with Purdue. Why in God’s name would you do that?”
You need to fill in the rest of the brackets to understand what makes sense. If you’ve got Penn State playing UCLA, then which of Ohio St, Rutgers and Maryland are they NOT playing.
And you want Michigan to have an annual series with Ohio State, USC and Michigan State? Isn’t that piling it on kinda thick?
The long-standing problem with Big Ten scheduling is that the three top football schools are all in the East. So you want to fix that by adding two more top programs to the schedules of OSU, PSU and Michigan?
LikeLike
With this expansion, I now have to redo all of the protected rivals that I’ve been drafting for the Big Ten.
I agree with Colin M. that Penn State’s rivals are effectively locked in with Ohio State, Rutgers and Maryland. Ohio State is a marquee border rival where OSU-PSU is generally now the #2 most-watched Big Ten regular season game after OSU-Michigan. The entire Eastern expansion for the Big Ten was also predicated on the network effects of Penn State’s brand and alumni diaspora combined with Rutgers and Maryland.
However, I’d disagree about Michigan in the sense that I think each of USC and UCLA should be getting an annual game with either Michigan or Ohio State. Yes, it’s piling on thick in terms of strength of schedule, but this expansion isn’t about watching USC play Illinois (and I say that as a rabid Illini). USC-Ohio State and Michigan-UCLA make a lot of sense to me as protected rivals and it’s certainly what the TV people are going to want to be paying for here.
On the Western side of the league, Wisconsin and Nebraska are the two schools that provide the most branding juice (even with Nebraska’s recent struggles), so I’d pair them up with USC and UCLA, too. That gives USC and UCLA brand name annual rivals from both the East and West sides of the conference.
LikeLike
I am good with Frank’s amendment (as I usually am). PSU locking with RU and MD makes sense in a way that UCLA–Purdue does not.
If I could set the Big Ten schedule, I would do OSU/USC and Mich/UCLA for just the first two years, then swap them in years 3 and 4. However, permanent equal locks seem to be the overwhelming preference, and in that case you cannot get both.
LikeLike
Marc: “If I could set the Big Ten schedule, I would do OSU/USC and Mich/UCLA for just the first two years, then swap them in years 3 and 4.”
Marc, that happens automatically with every team in the conference using the 3-6-6 format. Don’t you understand that? Every team will play every other team with either a 100% frequency or a 50% frequency. If they are not annual rivals, then OSU will play USC for two years and then they’ll play UCLA for the next two years. Ditto Michigan vs USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
Wow, you’re suggesting Ohio State’s three locked annual games should be Penn State, Michigan, and USC? That’s some serious schedule difficulty.
If the SEC goes to a 3-6-6 model, as expected, the thought is that the eight kings’ three locked games will include 2 kings and 1 non-king, and the non-kings will play 1 king and 2 non-kings. That seems like the most fair format.
LikeLike
Marc, that happens automatically with every team in the conference using the 3-6-6 format. Don’t you understand that?
I understand how locked games worked. If I were in charge, Michigan and Ohio State would have just two locked games apiece, and the third would be a California school that would swap after year two. This is in contrast to most people’s preference to lock three games.
In your model, Michigan and Ohio State each have two locked games that make sense, and a third that could have been drawn out of a hat. I would drop the third one when it has no competitive or historical reason to exist. But I realize most people want the simplicity of equal locking for everybody, even if it means some of the annual games are random, like UCLA–Purdue.
Brian is probably the master at proposing locked games while minimizing the random ones.
LikeLike
I agree that PSU-OSU should be preserved. Not sure many Penn State fans care about preserving RU and MD annually. I’d be fine playing MD or RU annually and the other 2 of 4 years, if the trade-off was a CA trip every other year. Another wrinkle to consider is not just what games are locked, but when they get played. Most of the B1G has a natural end of season rival. If PSU and MSU aren’t locked and RU and MD are, scheduling the last week of the season gets tricky.
LikeLike
Bob, if Rutgers and/or Maryland aren’t annual opponents with Penn State, then who is? I keep asking various versions of this question,
Let’s say Maryland isn’t an annual rival of Penn State, in conjunction with Ohio State and Rutgers. So then Maryland will have annual games with Rutgers and Ohio State and who?
LikeLike
@ Colin M – To answer your question, I’d lock IN and MD. Since 1970 PSU is 24-1 against RU and 26-2 against MD. Neither is a “rival” for PSU. RU hasn’t scored more than 10 points against PSU since 1995. Since expansion IN is 5-3 vs. MD and 5-3 vs. RU. Locking either one of those games makes more sense from a competitive standpoint. Plus IN and MD fans have basketball heritage to argue about.
LikeLike
@ Bob
@ Colin M – To answer your question, I’d lock IN and MD. Since 1970 PSU is 24-1 against RU and 26-2 against MD. Neither is a “rival” for PSU. RU hasn’t scored more than 10 points against PSU since 1995. Since expansion IN is 5-3 vs. MD and 5-3 vs. RU. Locking either one of those games makes more sense from a competitive standpoint. Plus IN and MD fans have basketball heritage to argue about.
No no no. Like Marc, you are bitching about a single pairing in my scheme while totally clueless about the big picture.
Bob, you need to formulate an entire 16-team scheme showing the three annual rivals for each Big Ten school, just as I did. You can’t just cherry-pick the rivals of one issue. Show us your match-ups for all 16 schools in the conference and then I’ll pick it apart and tell you about your lack of insight.
LikeLike
Like Marc, you are bitching about a single pairing in my scheme while totally clueless about the big picture.
Ever the class act. . . .
LikeLike
Marc: “Ever the class act. . . .”
Speaking of class acts, do you remember this spasm of your bitching?
“I cannot imagine that you add UCLA, and then lock them into annual games with Purdue. Why in God’s name would you do that?”
LikeLike
Frank,
I unlocked PSU/UMD for my plan, since it would still be played 50% of the time and UMD would also play half of all the kings and princes every year. But the B10 could consider RU and UMD each getting PSU 3 out of 4 years on average.
But anytime the B10 has added a big brand, they have locked in the new big brand games (PSU vs MI locked for 10 years, OSU vs NE locked in parity-based scheduling). There’s no reason to exempt PSU from that in this case.
Is OSU vs USC, MI and PSU unfair? Sure. So what? OSU having MI and PSU locked is already unfair. And OSU is going to play USC half the time anyway. Make the money
Is MI vs UCLA, OSU and MSU unfair? I guess. Compared to what? They could’ve gotten USC. They want OSU and MSU locked.
These big games are why you add USC and UCLA. They are played at least 50% of the time anyway. If anyone should complain, it’s UCLA and NE.
LikeLike
“I cannot imagine that you add UCLA, and then lock them into annual games with Purdue. Why in God’s name would you do that?”
Speculation about football games years in the future that I don’t control and don’t care about is not “bitching.” If they lock UCLA and Purdue in an annual series, I will fly anywhere in the United States and buy you the dinner of your choice. A more obviously bad scheduling idea would be difficult to imagine. But still, I am not calling you “clueless.”
LikeLike
Marc, I heartily concur that we seek a more civil tone. Let’s compare your projected schedule with mine.
In the past five years, UCLA has gone 8-4, 3-4, 4-8, 3-9 and 6-7 (total 43%) playing in the hapless Pac-12. It makes no sense for the Bruins to be locked into annual games with Michigan and Penn State. And why lock USC with Ohio State? They’re already locked with Michigan and Penn State.
Your format suggests that the top teams in east-heavy Big Ten should play even more heavyweight games in the East. Mine has the newcomers concentrated on some top games for television in the western part of the conference: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Purdue. Now, it really makes little difference if UCLA is scheduled with Iowa or Purdue or Illinois or Minnesota. I picked Purdue because it caused less disruption for other traditional rivals. Also, Purdue’s record over the past five years: 9-4, 2-4, 4-8, 6-7 and 7-7 (51%) is a good deal better than UCLA’s.
The Big Ten needs to juice up the West, not the East.
LikeLike
Colin,
Mine reposted here just for ease of reference:
USC – UCLA, OSU, NE
UCLA – USC, MI, PSU
NE – USC, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – NE, IA, WI
WI – IA, MN, NW
NW – IL, WI, RU
IL – NW, PU, IN
PU – IN, IL, UMD
IN – PU, MSU, IL
MSU – MI, IN, UMD
MI – OSU, MSU, UCLA
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
PSU – OSU, RU, UCLA
RU – PSU, UMD, NW
UMD – RU, MSU, IL
The key is that this is for just the first 10 years (like PSU getting OSU and MI locked for 10 years, then MI rotated off). After 10 years, then I’d consider a new plan.
And remember, all unlocked games are played 50% of the time. UMD will still see plenty of kings.
LikeLike
Here’s my list of locked matchups assuming a 3-6-6 format. It’s very similar to Brian’s. As I mentioned earlier unlocking PSU-MD and locking MSU-MD allows for consistent end of season locked matchups for the whole conference. I locked NE-UCLA and PSU-USC since these matchups have occurred more often historically. The rest is straightforward.
OSU – USC, PSU, MI
MI – UCLA, MSU, OSU
PSU – USC, OSU, RU
MSU – MI, IN, MD
MD – RU, IN, MSU
RU – MD, IL, PSU
IN – MSU, MD, PU
PU – IL, NW, IN
IL – RU, PU, NW
NW – WI, PU, IL
NE – UCLA, MN, IA
IA – MN, WI, NE
WI – NW, IA, MN
MN – IA, NE, WI
USC – OSU , PSU, UCLA
UCLA – NE, MI, USC
Feel free to chime in.
@ Colin M – “bitching” and “clueless” really? Crack a cold one and try to be B1G not small.
LikeLike
How much do TV ratings matter to ND?
One thing I’ve noticed and I think ND fans have (from posts on their boards), they really seem to suffer these days from most cfb fans focusing on their own teams/conferences.
Conference games that matter in the context of division standings or championship game slots can drive viewership across the footprint.
ND really suffers from that outside of its national games against teams like Ohio State or Clemson or USC, etc.
If ND is top 10 or playing in a high rated matchup, there’s no issue but parts of their schedule suffer from that, especially under this ACC deal which gives them 3 or 4 games like that annually.
I think they would draw much higher TV ratings as part of the Big Ten than otherwise as a result of that.
Can only speak for myself, but I’ll watch a lot more USC/UCLA than I ever have before.
Obviously that affects their TV deal as well, NBC is only paying for a couple of home games since ND can’t monetize their away games like conferences can.
I don’t think ND will join the Big Ten at this time, but I also don’t think independence is sustainable if we get to the mid-2030s and a bunch of ACC teams get poached.
LikeLike
Take this past season, ND played in 3 highly rated games.
ND at FSU, ND at Wisc, Cindy at ND.
That means NBC only got 1 great game.
LikeLike
These “Big 12 will raid Pac-12” rumors feel so much like the “AAC will raid Big 12” rumors last year.
This only works for the Big 12 if Washington/Oregon leave the Pac-12.
There is no way that the current 10 team Pac-12 gets less TV $ than the new Big 12.
New Big 12 is a $10-15 million per team kind of conference.
I don’t see how Pac-12 numbers fall that low.
Of course issue may be lack of bidders.
LikeLike
I can’t believe UO/UW won’t make the cut.
LikeLike
I wonder how much of Oregon and Washington potentially not making the cut is the difficulty of getting a 3/4ths vote because existing B1G members do not see either as an adequate replacement for their existing B1G opponents.
Indiana might not pack the stadium every week but Michigan State means more department revenue than Washington.
Why add a school that offsets some or all the gain in conference revenue with a decline in university income and increase in expenses?
LikeLike
It’s an important basic point that I think a lot of people lose sight of when we’re discussing superconferences: eventually, these schools need to actually *play* each other.
In the new 16-team Big Ten, there will presumably be a 9 conference game schedule with each team having 3 protected annual rivals and then rotating through the rest of the league 50% of the time. That means getting Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, and now USC and UCLA at least 50% of the time. That means everyone is getting a trip to Los Angeles for football at least every other year. That means all of those Michigan/OSU/PSU/Wisconsin vs. USC/UCLA games happen at least 50% of the time.
Beyond the TV money aspect, every additional expansion school dilutes the ability for everyone in the league to actually play each other regularly. For a football coach that’s recruiting, it’s Southern California that matters the most on the West Coast (by FAR) and being able to tell an LA native that he’s guaranteed to be playing at least 2 games in LA over the course of 4 years is a whole lot different than saying they might get a game in LA… or SF… or Seattle… or Eugene during that same time period.
When we go past a 16-team conference, you have to start asking who is worth adding where it’s OK to play the other existing conference members *less* than now. Who is worth adding where I’m giving up more games against Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin or the newly added USC or UCLA? Notre Dame obviously fits that criteria, but it’s a *really* short list outside of them (and many on that list are entrenched in the SEC).
As I’ve stated elsewhere, the SEC and Big Ten expansions over the past year have one thing in common: they are 100% power moves with absolutely no filler. These aren’t merely big fish that the SEC caught with UT/OU and the Big Ten with USC/UCLA. The SEC and Big Ten legitimately caught multiple *whales* in a way that’s really beyond prior modern expansions. “Big fish” that might have been perfectly acceptable expansion options a week ago now no longer look viable (either financially or competitively) because the SEC and Big Ten got the whales that they really wanted without having to do deal with anyone smaller.
LikeLike
In recent years,fans have felt major conferences have had too many fixed games, and not enough variety. I think we’re going too far the other way. I would prefer 5 fixed games for the SEC and Big Ten even though it means you cycle through everyone (home and away) every 5 years instead of 4. It allows more rivalries to be kept (and developed) while still cycling through the conference at a reasonable pace.
For the Big Ten, you could start with some teams on the edges:
PSU: OSU, MSU, USC, Maryland, RU
USC: UCLA, PSU, NEB, Maryland, “midwestern team that wants to recruit CA”
UCLA: USC, MSU, NEB, RU, “different midwestern team that wants to recruit CA”
Neb: USC, UCLA, Iowa, Wis, Illinois?
This means the teams in the middle will play the 6 newcomers less often, but 9 of the original 10 Big Ten teams would then get either Michigan or Ohio State as an annual rival (the one that didn’t would maybe be someone who got USC and Neb for the box office), while still getting the other 1 regularly (along with PSU, Nebraska, USC, etc.)
LikeLike
m(Ag), a 5-5-5 format for 16 teams means ten conference games each year. That’s OK with me but does the Big Ten want that?
LikeLike
m(Ag),
I can’t speak to what would be best for the SEC, but there just aren’t 5 games that need to be locked for B10 schools. The level of “rivalries” being left unlocked are no longer strongly valued (OSU/IL, MI/MN, …). I miss them, but it’s the price of expansion. The math of 3 + 6/6 is too clean to ignore. The other option is to just lock the games that matter (number varies by school), and that won’t get to 5 for anyone either.
As for your list above, what midwestern team doesn’t want to recruit CA? All 14 current B10 schools want to.
LikeLike
“a 5-5-5 format”…
no, I’d stay at 9 games a year, so you have 5 rivals you play every year, and 4 of the other 10 every year. You play everyone home and away in 5 years instead of 4.
LikeLike
The addition of PSU by the B10 (and maybe FSU by the ACC) we’re the only whale moves in all expansions previous.
LikeLike
It’s a valid point IF you’re talking about adding Stanford and Cal and UW and Oregon; it’s a different story when you swap out ND for Cal.
Four regional divisions
USC, Stanford, UW, Oregon, UCLA
Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois
NW, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame
PSU, OSU, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana
Play your division each year.
Play one protected rival. (Protects ND/USC, OSU/UM, Indiana/Purdue, Illinois/NW, PSU/MSU…and probably creates UCLA/Nebraska)
Play four out of division games each year.
in seven years, you play every team in the league home and away. And every player will at least get to play every team in the league in a 3.5 year college career.
To tease out a schedule for my team (PSU)…
Year 1–OSU, MSU, UW, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois…and Rutgers/UMD/Indiana
Year 2–OSU, MSU, Oregon, Notre Dame, Iowa, NW…and Rutgers/UMD/Indiana
Year 3–OSU, MSU, USC, Nebraska, Stanford, Purdue…and Rutgers/UMD/Indiana
Year 4–OSU, MSU, Michigan, UCLA, Iowa, Minnesota …and Rutgers/UMD/Indiana
Two kings per year. Three barons. Two knights. Two peasants. That’s a schedule that is challenging…better than the current Big Ten schedules….but not so ridiculous that it’ll get your coach fired every year (sorry Mississippi State in the SEC West!).
LikeLike
I think you’d hear a lot of complaints about that system. OSU doesn’t want to be stuck in a newbie division. Why would the B10 want to lock OSU vs UMD, RU and IN? Would the old B10 teams want to see OSU only twice in 7 years?
A plan I kind of like for 20: 3 locked rivals + 4 50% rivals + 12 33% games
It gives you tiers of importance (for those games that don’t need to be annual but are still special) and cleanly rotates every 3 years.
LikeLike
I can’t believe UO/UW won’t make the cut.
Most sources I have seen are putting their TV revenue way below the per-school average of the next deal. That would explain it right there.
Indiana might not pack the stadium every week but Michigan State means more department revenue than Washington.
I suspect Washington and Oregon would have better-than-average drawing power in Big Ten stadiums. If they don’t make it in, it’s due to TV money.
LikeLike
If we are assuming the people in the stands are fans of the home team then sure Michigan State and Wisconsin are interchangeable with Washington and Oregon but that’s not how it really works.
Some tickets sell to fans of the visitors and the west coast teams aren’t going to purchase those in a remotely similar quantity.
Telling fans you aren’t guaranteed a seat for the Ohio State or Michigan game without a season ticket isn’t as credible of a threat when the opponent is from the West Coast. There are teams in the B1G current footprint who can top off a stadium into a sellout. The West Coast teams will not.
LikeLike
I realized you were thinking that, but the biggest stadiums sell out even if they are playing Troy State, and a few thousand seats at one Indiana game every other year would not be the reason to vote no if the TV money were there, because that is where the bulk of the revenue comes from.
LikeLike
Assuming USC and UCLA aren’t voting yet you need 11 votes to expand. Four no votes block.
Surely you do not believe there aren’t four or more B1G schools who aren’t averaging 100% capacity in football even in league play.
In 2017 only four Big Ten members averaged a reported 100% of capacity.
Remember all conference members are equal in conference distribution. What funds capacity to out do or match conference opponents is your ability to generate unshared revenue by ticket sales, donations and local sponsorships.
That’s the money that makes Michigan to be Michigan and Indiana to be Indiana.
Further as a general rule, a donation dollar tends to have more utility to an athletic department than a conference revenue dollar because states tend to exercise oversight and limit the dollar that goes into the athletic department while booster club dollars are subject to booster club not state oversight
LikeLike
The B1G schools that have a lot of empty seats are Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Northwestern, and Rutgers. The 3 midwest stadiums will fill up if hosting Ohio State or Michigan. However, this is not the reason OU and UW will not get invited (if that is the case). The bottom feeders will not get together to oppose what OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, and WI want. They know who is creating the $$$ and are too smart to upset the gravy train.
LikeLike
Presidents speak frankly and occasionally heatedly in their meetings. They don’t scrape and bow. They don’t rubber stamp what the most valuable want.
No the poorer Big Ten schools aren’t going to block what makes financial sense but on a close call? Rich and poor are asking if the gain is big enough to go two or three time zones over. Is the money bump big enough to justify adding chaos to the system.
It is never this outcome produces the maximum revenue snap fingers and it happens.
USC and UCLA was an easy conversation. Academically people they want to rub shoulders with, market they want to recruit for students in addition to athletes, huge brands athletically, a major rivalry game and a money bump worth the hassles.
That conversation was much easier than one about Oregon and Washington.
LikeLike
@Little8 explained it better. I understand that the non-king schools have the votes mathematically to block expansion. In practice they simply would not do that if the TV money were there. They realize where their bread is buttered. The few thousand fans you are talking about, at perhaps one game a year, is just not material enough to matter.
LikeLike
Basically, there are just too many reasons to not add UO. UW a closer call but still probably not compelling enough (except for possible non-football reasons).
The pair to watch should be Stanford and Cal.
LikeLike
Presidents speak frankly and occasionally heatedly in their meetings.
How many such meetings have you been in.
They don’t rubber stamp what the most valuable want.
Actually, they do. I mean…if they have a concern, they will raise it politely, just as you or I would. But the members of a conference are not equal. They might be on paper, but not in reality.
No the poorer Big Ten schools aren’t going to block what makes financial sense but on a close call?
The “close calls” never get discussed. The Big Ten doesn’t expand to get just slightly better. As Jim Delany once said, any expansion needs to be compelling.
LikeLike
Most ND alums appear to accept that they will *eventually* be joining the B1G. They’re even dividing the pods up to their liking. Legends/Leaders/Losers & Lackeys. Call it ND arrogance but they also believe UNC & Duke will follow them in. Amazing to see the evolution of the die hard domers since the USC announcement.
LikeLike
Former UNC Chancellor with some history on UNC
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-considered-move-to-sec-or-big-ten-in-early-2010s-former-chancellor-says/20362957/
LikeLike
His 2 big concerns:
1. Separating from NCSU with the politics within the board of governors
2. Keeping the Duke/UNC hoops games when they matter (early March, not December)
LikeLike
The B10 may require the SEC to take NCSU to take UNC.
Tricky but possible.
LikeLike
Initially I had thought that the SEC would have no counter to Notre Dame, if the SEC were to add Notre Dame. But actually, I looked into it and I think they do.
Notre Dame’s average viewership is about 3.6 million viewers per game. This is the highest among available schools. But Florida State and Clemson are numbers 2 and 3 on the list at 2.7 million and 2.2 million. So between the two of them, you’re pulling in about as many viewers as Notre Dame plus Oregon or Notre Dame plus Stanford or Notre Dame plus UNC or Notre Dame plus Miami or whatever combo the Big Ten comes up with.
So it looks like, in the end, both conferences might make their move: Big Ten grabs Notre Dame plus whoever, and SEC grabs Florida State and Clemson, and they come out pretty much even in terms of TV dollars.
It sure looks like this is going to end up being a near tie in the end. The Big Ten may end up being slightly ahead on money, but not by a lot.
LikeLike
*if the B1G were to add Notre Dame
LikeLike
If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten within the next couple of years, the SEC doesn’t have an immediate counter because I see no way out of the ACC grant of rights (for the full members). Eventually, I think that has to happen, assuming Clemson doesn’t fall off a cliff.
By the way, I think there is a good chance Notre Dame’s numbers go up in the Big Ten, but for now we’ve got to use the numbers we have.
LikeLike
I think TV execs make those types of assumptions as they must.
NBC would probably pay more for a package that enables them to select ND home games from the Big Ten rather than what they’d pay ND separately if/when they re-up their deal.
There’s probably no way for ND to maximize their TV money as an independent; it’s hard to make anybody outside their fandom care for their games without national implications.
LikeLike
@Marc, true, it may take some tome fir the SEC to get FSU and Clemson but it would happen eventually and it would effectively counter Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Eventually, the ACC will get picked apart. FSU and Clemson to the SEC.
The B10 may grab UNC+Duke+UVa+GTech.
SEC may add VTech and NCSU too.
We’d have a basketball B10-SEC challenge. Possible that it starts or ends with the VA&NC&GA rivalry games.
LikeLike
It not sure Duke or Georgia Tech make sense for the Big Ten. They have very small football followings. They would dilute the revenue pool. The others you mentioned all make sense.
LikeLike
Andy: Well, people on this thread seem to think the UNC+Duke combo makes sense due to basketball. I’ll admit that GTech is like UW and is on the edge. They would not be worth enough if you look purely at TV payout reasons, but both have compelling non-football reasons:
1. Academics (if the B10 aims to become an Ivy peer to draw OOS and International students/tuition)
2. Lots of B10 alums (for fundraising)
3. Demography (for OOS students)
4. GTech especially is in the middle of incredibly fertile football recruiting territory.
LikeLike
It’s interesting, but one of the things about ND is that it feels like a heavily underleveraged property as an independent these days.
If ND was part of the Big Ten or SEC, their ratings would probably be much stronger.
Past 10-20 years, there’s been such a strong move towards “conference fandom” (for lack of a better word), and that’s the tide that lifts the boats in a conference. That’s why we’re approaching a point where nearly all of the top rated games will just be SEC or Big Ten games.
I think that’s hurt ND especially given that outside of a handful of major “national” games against other national brands, it’s not clear that anybody outside of ND fans cares about their other games.
It’s not so much about scheduling per se (which would obviously be stronger in the SEC or Big Ten), but more about the fans that watch conference games for their implications or because they’re used to watching the conference games in their time slots.
I’d venture ND would probably be around Penn State as a top 5-ish TV draw in one of the two conferences.
Also why I’m not sure they can really maximize their TV $ as an independent that only controls their home games.
LikeLike
Clemson and FSU probably also see their ratings go up if they’re in the SEC vs the ACC so I think it’s a wash.
LikeLike
They might see something of a lift, but it’s just probably not going to be anywhere near what ND would get imo.
Florida State’s ceiling is below Florida’s, and Clemson is nowhere near that kind of brand nationally as a new power in cfb.
Also their national games are already all on ABC/ESPN (same as the SEC), the national ones anyways. It’s a bit different from ND being on NBC which just makes it hard for them to pull outside of their national games since there’s no other college football there.
LikeLike
Basically all of Notre Dame’s current games get premium times slots now. In the B1G they would have increased competition for those time slots. They will also probably lose more games.
LikeLike
Sure but my point is that being in a conference provides synergy that independence doesn’t, and that effect is exacerbated by their NBC deal being the lone college football game on that network.
Those are 2 synergy boosts that really only they will get from joining a conference.
Texas, OU, USC, UCLA will all benefit (as will others that join) from the increased exposure to much larger conference fanbases, but really only ND starts from 0 in that aspect.
It’s going to be interesting to see how CFB changes, also depends on quality of those teams.
LikeLike
Ok but Notre Dame already gets top 10 or maybe top 5 tv ratings right now.
And millions of fans. I’m not sure there’s a whole lot of room for growth.
LikeLike
Andy, if ND joins the B10, you can be sure that the B10 will be selling out more TV packages/tiers. There may be enough inventory for an afternoon CBS game, evening NBC game, and Fox would have a choice pick for noon too.
LikeLike
Sure, but the SEC would be loaded with big time programs in this scenario too. No shortage of big time matchups. Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida State, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M, Auburn, etc.
Adding USC and Notre Dame definitely boosts the Big Ten’s tv inventory. No doubt. But the SEC can effectively counter it with Oklahoma, Texas, Clemson, Florida State.
LikeLike
Andy, for sure.
I didn’t argue that the SEC won’t have top-notch matchups.
I was arguing that ND wouldn’t have to fight for prime slots in the B10 (as you stated) because the B10 would have more prime slots if ND joined.
LikeLike
I see.
LikeLike
Past 10-20 years, there’s been such a strong move towards “conference fandom” (for lack of a better word), and that’s the tide that lifts the boats in a conference.
Even 20 years ago, the Big Ten schools collectively had more football viewers than the ACC schools. Notre Dame will always attract its own fans, but ACC viewership is bound to be lower, as so many of those teams are basketball schools and often have very little to play for in November.
As an independent, the Irish are effectively out of the national championship picture after their first loss. One-loss teams in a conference are not.
LikeLike
“Hello, Notre Dame? It’s the 90’s calling and we want our ‘special status ‘ back.” This post is exactly right.
LikeLike
As Frank posted above, in addition to money, there is the need to play the “right” teams. Let’s face it, B1G fans were apoplectic when UMd and especially RU were invited, because it had to reduce the number of “traditional” games. That was eight years ago and the motivations to add the East Coast were clear.
Now, which of the remaining PAC schools make B1G fans excited (other than maybe Stanford)? Are Illinois fans really more excited to play a very good Oregon team rather than, eg, Minnesota, a mediocre B1G team? Would Oregon – Illinois collect lots more TV viewers than a mediocre B1G game? A few more, but not enough to be change the outlook of the league.
(And that ignores travel issues, etc., created by more West Coast teams.)
So wouldn’t Oregon/Washington not only need to pay for themselves, but make a sizable extra payment to the existing B1G teams?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Bigger issue for Oregon is academics (especially research spending/prestige) than finances; they’re probably on the verge of getting kicked out of AAU at some point in the next couple of years or being forced to bow out like Syracuse/Iowa State.
I’m actually not concerned about the finances in terms of TV revenue:
If you start Oregon/Washington at $35 million and scale that up to $80 million over 10 years, that would easily be justifable and I can easily see there being enough TV money for those 2 to not subtract from the Big Ten TV deals. TV contracts would easily pull in enough to cover that, and then when you add in an expanded playoff or a Big Ten football tournament, there’s going to be a lot more additional revenue coming in…
The problem may just be that the Big Ten doesn’t want to get “Nebraska’d” again by Oregon which has lower research expenditures and is probably among the lowest ranked AAUs.
If Oregon academically was on par with Washington, I think Oregon/Washington would be much more of a guarantee.
As it is now, if Oregon doesn’t get added in this round, I think they get kicked out of the AAU before next expansion round.
LikeLike
Oregon is dead last in the AAU. Significantly behind Missouri, Kansas, SUNY Stony Brook, and SUNY Buffalo.
And as I’ve said elsewhere, Missouri is investing over two billion into expanding research over the next 5 to 10 years so they’ve been moving up the rankings and should continue to do so. I don’t see any sign that Oregon is moving up.
LikeLike
Pac-12/ACC deal would be interesting, but I’m just not seeing how this generates enough extra revenue to benefit everyone involved.
It’d replace the Pac-12 Networks with some kind of renamed ACC Network that’s provides games from both conferences.
That sounds like an interesting strategy I guess, but it’s hard to see how much extra money that generates.
How much of the gap does that close? $3-5 million per school? Just hard to see how that’s a game changer when the Big Ten and SEC are going to be aiming for $100 million per school in the 2030s.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t see an ACC/rump Pac deal being worth much unless they effectively have a relegation/promotion system or strength-weighted scheduling like the NFL does so that the top teams in each league play each other all the time and unequal TV distributions to go along with that. Even then, it won’t get them to the level of the B10/SEC though it’s possible for a school like Clemson to maybe come close?
LikeLike
I think unequal distributions would be the death of those leagues, maybe not now but eventually. I agree, the marginal value is paltry, but every dollar counts when you’re pounding a tin cup.
LikeLike
This article is from August 2021, but given the recent discussions and events it seems appropriate to post now
https://swimswam.com/best-case-and-worst-case-scenarios-for-pending-reckoning-of-college-athletics/
While it is swimming centered, it is about the best case and worst case scenarios for collegiate Olympic sports in the (likely) event that further consolidation of the top tier of college FB leads FB to break off from the NCAA (at least in its current form).
LikeLike
Frank has been tweeting about this development:
I feel like we’re an ESPN guarantee or two away from a full on merger. Fox has said they won’t be bidding on the PAC12, so ESPN might work something out to make the clear #3 league and prevent it from going anywhere else. No one else can bid on the PAC’s rights yet since they are in the ESPN/Fox exclusive window. PAC players might be spooked enough to take a discount for stability. Let ESPN handle scheduling so there are more brand on brand games, conference championship playoff, put the PTN content into a now national ACCN, and dive ESPN+ subscriptions with basketball. Notre Dame and someone else might slip out but the downside risk is effectively managed for the 18 schools with zero hope for the BIG/SEC
LikeLike
Someone bitterly lamented that the SEC and Big Ten are killing college football.
But FOX and ESPN are at the very least handing them both loading automatic weapons.
FOX lost UT and OU to ESPN.
FOX didn’t want to lose USC and UCLA so they traded them over to the Big Ten for safety’s sake.
ESPN is now doing counter-measures to not lose the rest of the Pac-12 to the Big Ten (UW, OU, Stanford) and Big 12 (Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Arizona State), which are owned by FOX.
If they lose that battle, obviously, ESPN’s next fear is losing Notre Dame to the Big Ten as team #20.
LikeLike
Someone bitterly lamented that the SEC and Big Ten are killing college football.
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but the Big Ten and SEC are not killing college football they are simply doing what (on an aggregate level) their fans want. Fans are not willing to “consume” the less desirable games anymore. Texas cited their fans displeasure with their Big 12 home schedule as a reason to move to the SEC. Now the SEC teams will be rolling through Austin increasing engagement and interest. Does that development, hurt Texas Tech because UT and OU won’t be visiting? It does. Is college football on the whole better off with Texas playing SEC foes? I would argue yes.
LikeLike
Money is killing what CFB was, and it’s all OU and UGA’s fault. Their lawsuit vs the NCAA in 1984 is what started all this. Once schools/conferences controlled TV deals, the independents went away (PSU, SC, FSU, …), the CCG started, expansion for TV markets began, and the race down the slippery slope began. A little money was a good thing, especially for women’s and non-revenue sports, but the rest has destroyed most of the good of CFB.
LikeLike
Someone bitterly lamented that the SEC and Big Ten are killing college football.
Any idea how often someone has said, “_______ is killing college football”?
LikeLike
Clearly the forward pass killed college football. Or maybe it was helmets.
LikeLike
Assuming PAC stabilization at 10 or adding 2 I would not be surprised if they didn’t get a decent deal.
MLS tends to produce G5 viewership and is getting $250 million for world wide rights to MLS that may be worth more if they get an OTA or cable partner.
After talk Apple had Sunday Ticket wrapped up we heard Amazon and possibly Disney had submitted new bids keeping process alive with $2.5 billion being estimated number.
The streaming wars are switching to sports. Prestige TV shows and movies have been the currency of streaming but if you aren’t tapping into an established brand like Star Wars, Star Trek, the MCU or popular books it takes a lot of marketing to get traction.
NHL now has every out of market on ESPN+ and I think 75 national broadcasts. Apple and YouTube now have some national MLB and Amazon has Thursday night NFL. Peacock now gets one Notre Dame game.
A surviving PAC-10/12 could well be the first big streaming deal though sounds like B1G could have a streaming component. Stanford the alma mater of so many decision makers and their immediate reports could help the surviving PAC be the first P5 with a large streaming element.
They won’t compete with B1G or SEC’s tier of revenue but the opening wallets of Apple, Amazon, Disney, Paramount, and Comcast to get streaming content may be the difference in doing Ok and being dismantled.
LikeLike
@Mike – Yes, this is how I see the proposal.
It’s not about the Pac-12 or ACC thinking that this will prevent Oregon, Washington, FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc. from leaving for the Big Ten or SEC.
Instead, this plan is to provide downside protection to the Pac-12 and ACC if any of those schools *do* leave.
Even with defections, they’ll still have a shared conference network to pitch to replacement members or, as you alluded to, merge whoever is left into a “best of the rest” league that’s ultimately #3 behind the B1G and SEC. That would ensure that none of the ACC or Pac-12 schools would get outright demoted to non-power status.
LikeLike
Wilner’s coming around to it. Andy Staples hasn’t yet.
LikeLike
If I’m the Pac 10, isn’t the simple play to offer Ok State, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech? You claim the next best brands in Texas after UT, A&M and OU. It eliminates the Big 12 as a power 5 league ensuring your survival. Would those 4 make the move? I think they would since the Pac is still the more prestigious brand compared to the Big 12 which was forced to bring in G5 teams to replace OU and UT.
LikeLike
Take Kansas and BYU while you’re at it.
LikeLike
It is not clear at all that the Texas schools would be better off in the Pac. Last year, the Big XII had more revenue than the Pac-12. Both leagues are losing their best schools, so it is hard to make comparisons. But schools don’t move unless the benefits are compelling.
If the revenue isn’t a slam-dunk, then other issues become important. The Texas schools would probably rather not be playing so many games in the Pacific time zone. Without USC and UCLA, the football in the Pac-12 might not be competitive enough. Texas high school kids probably won’t be excited about playing in the Pacific Northwest.
The cultural divide would be enormous. There is probably no Pac school that matches the passion for football in Texas. Academically, the four available Texas schools are a big step down from the high-end Pac schools (yes, I know they have OSU and WSU as well). Baylor’s religious culture would be like oil and vinegar to the Pac’s pinot noir.
Yes, the Pac-12 is the more prestigious brand, but that prestige is based on things that are no longer true. The Big XII was forced to bring in G5 teams, but that’s only because they lost their tentpole programs first. The Pac is now looking at the same thing, including some schools the Big XII already rejected like San Diego State and Boise State.
LikeLike
For the teams joining the Pac:
-the revenue will be better in the Pac, assuming they can take the key schools in the old Big 12 footprint (Kansas, OK State + several Texas schools). They would have most of the remaining Big 12 TV value after the departures of OU and Texas + all of the remaining Pac 12 TV value.
-for the casual football fan, the names of the schools left in the Pac 10 still have more resonance than the schools in the new Big 12.
-the time zone difference is very likely a “plus” in terms of exposure and TV money. The traditional time zones are going to be packed with Big Ten, SEC, and ACC games. TCU vs. Arizona “after dark” will have less potential viewers (because a lot of people out East will be asleep), but it will probably still get better ratings than it would airing against Auburn at Oklahoma, A&M at Tennessee, Michigan State at Iowa, and USC at Nebraska.
-From a sports perspective the culture thing is just silly. If anything, it adds more “heat” to the rivalries. We’ll show those “left coast liberals”/”right wing hicks” what good football is!
-That said, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some Pac 10 leaders letting snobbery get in the way of doing what is best for their conference. I could also see several schools getting invited, but Baylor (both the most controversial school and the school with the most recent athletic success) getting left out.
LikeLike
That is my thinking. Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona State, etc. resonate more with the casual viewer who has seen these schools play on big stages (Rose Bowls, National Championships) for decades vs. schools like Houston or UCF or Cincinnati who have been mid majors for decades.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, both conference media deals are gutted by losing their top brands. But the P12 is the conference with more state flagships in it at this point, and combining TX markets with all the western markets seems to make sense.
TX kids may now be excited about playing in WA and OR, but do they really care about ISU, KU, and UCF either? UW and UO are better brands than anything left in the B12. UU made the Rose Bowl. CU is a big name. CA is great for recruiting, and with less competition than TX (esp. with all the SEC teams right there).
And speaking of the Rose Bowl, that’s a big revenue source that the P12 owns. The new CFP may change everything, but right now you need a link to a major bowl. Does the Sugar Bowl want to keep the new B12 (and pay them equally with the SEC)? The Rose Bowl brand trumps all other bowls, and it will continue in some fashion.
The B10 would probably like to see the P12 restock so that game keeps some value, too.
LikeLike
For all the talk about Pac 12 “brands,” Oklahoma St. and TCU have averaged better TV viewership in the link above for the last 5 years than Stanford, Oregon, Washington or UCLA. Anybody in the Pac but USC. Ultimately value is about eyeballs. Pac isn’t producing them for the advertisers.
LikeLike
Yes, and they played OU and UT every year. And TCU includes their game against Ohio State that drew 7M. What do the B12 numbers look like without those 2 schools? The P12 only has the one king to boost viewership, plus all those late night games to hurt it.
LikeLike
Staples came out with an article about this.
Of the non-B10/SEC (present and future), Clemson, FSU, UW, and UO (unsurprisingly) lead everyone else.
LikeLike
This PAC/ACC talk is very strange and reeks of desperation on both their parts. Why would the ACC want anything to do with this unless they didn’t think their GOR would hold up? Makes me think they know something we don’t.
LikeLike
ACC > PAC > BXII. Therefore, PACC (i.e. PAC + ACC) >> BXII. And, PACC could consume BXII, as it sees fit…and as ESPN allows.
LikeLike
Every league is desperate except the Big Ten and SEC. They are the only two leagues that don’t have to worry about losing schools.
Why would the ACC want anything to do with this unless they didn’t think their GOR would hold up?
Assume the GOR is ironclad (which I believe it is). Still, they are in a weak position, because they are woefully underpaid. Anything that brings in more money is a plus.
The ACC was prepared to enter a scheduling alliance with the Big Ten and Pac-12. That lasted all of five minutes, but the motivation was there. This is the same thing, except without the Big Ten, and this time I imagine they will get it in writing.
LikeLike
Former Georgia head coach with some interesting predictions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=241&v=7KiHT_2b_YI&feature=emb_logo
LikeLike
Two to three per year over six years as counsel for the Sun Belt. Discussed same with peers in SEC.
LikeLike
Wilner continues his series on the PAC’s options. Today is standing pat.
That would leave the 10-team conference with approximately $300 million in average annual value, or $30 million per continuing member.
In order for expansion to be financially worthwhile, the Pac-12 would need to add schools that carry more than $30 million in annual media value.
There simply aren’t any available.
[snip]
Why? Because of their value, or lack thereof, on the most profitable broadcast platform: over-the-air television.
“Look at it this way,” the source explained. “There are only so many window openings on the schedule. Those are going to be filled by the big brands, no matter which league they’re in. Because they have more than others, the Big Ten and SEC are going to take most of them.
“Then other big-brand games like Clemson-Miami or Oregon-Washington, are going to have a place in those windows.
“(But) Cal vs. Oregon or San Diego State vs. Arizona is going to find a secondary platform, where the bulk of (college football) is going to be.
“Unless (expansion involves) a school that can find it’s way to the main-platform windows, it’s value is the same as the others in the bulk bin.”
From that standpoint, few teams currently in the Pac-12 — or the Big 12, for that matter — are capable of elevating the media value for the collective.
And there are zero options outside either conference. There is no more water to squeeze.
LikeLike
To me an ideal, but very unlikely, end game would be two super leagues of a max of 20 teams each, or maybe the SEC and B1G only go to 18. Then there are two more P5 minus leagues each consisting of 16 teams or so, with the leftovers from the PAC, ACC, and Big 12 and maybe a couple more G5 promotions.
That leaves two leagues with $100 million per team and maybe two around $60 or so. That is a huge gap, but would allow the P5 minus to survive and provide inventory for TV and streaming. It would also save schools like Wake Forest, BC , Syracuse, Wash State and Oregon State, from likely disasters, with no where to go. (I take for granted that neither the SEC or B1G would demote existing members).
The statement quoted above indicating that UNC might not be able to leave NC State behind and would not wish to leave Duke behind certainly creates an interesting scenario. I am not sure that either the SEC or B1G would take that trio as a package. (Unless of course ND said that it is a foursome, which makes no sense). I would not be shocked to see UVa and VaTech in a similar position.
LikeLike
The statement quoted above indicating that UNC might not be able to leave NC State behind and would not wish to leave Duke behind certainly creates an interesting scenario.
I think the full quote was that it might be possible — they just didn’t want to deal with the politics at the time. I recall when people said there was no way A&M could separate from Texas, Oklahoma couldn’t leave Oklahoma State, and so on.
LikeLike
I’m just not sure there will be that much money+exposure available.
The main linear networks are struggling financially right now.
And none of the groups outside the SEC and Big Ten can generate games that have 2+ million viewers regularly.
So it’s hard to see where the money comes from…
New Big 12 is probably worth at most $20 million per team a year.
New Pac-12 probably worth $30 million per team a year.
ACC if they lose FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, UVA or some combination of 4 or 5 is probably worth less than $20 million a year.
The ratings just aren’t there.
Most of the inventory of those conferences is just secondary “bulk inventory” for cable networks or streaming.
Not much can justify premium TV slots on Saturdays.
LikeLike
That they would be kicking the tires on the SEC makes sense. The EPSN part doesn’t.
LikeLike
@Mike – Right – the ESPN part doesn’t make sense there. They have *every* incentive to keep that ACC deal intact as-is for the full duration. It’s an absolute steal financially.
That being said, I’ll at least place this into at least in the plausible rumor categories (and I’m skeptical by nature). It’s weird seeing potential Earth-shattering realignment news coming from Swimswam, but as the father to a competitive swimmer, I know that site isn’t an attention-seeking Internet/Twitter rumor monger, either. UVA is a swimming powerhouse in particular, so it wouldn’t shock me if that’s where a swimming-focused site is hearing something. Whether it ends up being true or not is a totally different matter.
LikeLike
As bad as the ESPN contract may be for the ACC, if those four schools were simply allowed to ignore the GOR and join the SEC, with the blessing of ESPN, why would the rest of the ACC agree? If that happened, then presumably that would make ND a free agent to join the B1G and bring along a playmate. The B1G might find that to be a fair swap with the SEC.
Other than as a companion to ND, which of the remaining ACC schools would be of interest to the B1G? (GaTech? Duke?) They would all literally be swaying in the breeze within another league that has been gutted.
The difference here is that presumably the majority of the league could stop this and enforce the ACC GOR, which has more than 10 years to run. The Big 12 and PAC 12 were at the end of agreements, so teams could leave (more or less).
What is the benefit to ESPN of giving up the ACC contract
LikeLike
Big Ten will fight for UNC and UVA for sure.
Beyond that, who knows. Maybe Duke. Maybe Ga Tech.
I think Duke is far more likely than Ga Tech though; Ga Tech is an afterthought in Georgia whereas Duke makes sense to further lock down Mid-Atlantic.
LikeLike
@Frank you often (almost always correctly) say think like a university president.
Here think like a TV executive. Carriage fee economy is withering. There is a battle royale over who becomes the oligarchs of streaming. The B1G has just picked up two of the last three monster programs not aligned with SEC or B1G and has inside track on the other. They have inside track for the remaining below monster tier western programs.
The last field of battle is the ACC and with contract expiration in 2036 the fight is on. You have to further worry that some of those desirable programs you locked up cheap will be inclined to have the warm fuzzies for B1G.
From that viewpoint you say I won’t bid against myself until contract renewal or you can say I can make these schools bid against themselves by locking into SEC now vs spending 14 years with a lower income stream in order to get maximum value 2037 and beyond.
I suspect it is potentially a better deal for ESPN to loot ACC. Make the survivors whole and enjoy the increased value the four bring to SEC.
Now lacking access to the numbers I don’t know how much more valuable Tennessee-Clemson is to ESPN vs Clemson-Pitt but I think it’s plausible ESPN is better off locking those schools into SEC
LikeLike
I think people are giving the networks way more power than they have. I don’t think university presidents will be making 100 year decisions because espn told them so. There is no telling who these schools will partner with in 10 years let alone 20 or 30. IMO Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA made these decisions on their own based on where they saw the money winds blowing instead of Fox and ESPN playing RISK with the college football map. Florida State, Clemson, UVA, and UNC could have very well reached out to the SEC and then touched base with ESPN about the GOR but I don’t see it the other way around.
LikeLike
ESPN has always been adamant that they never initiate they only answer questions.
Given circumstances I’d say it was inevitable that question or a similar one would be asked and possibly ESPN does see it as a favorable outcome.
As an attorney there are things I’d never open my mouth to say of my own initiative but expect will be asked and come ready to answer.
LikeLike
ESPN has always been adamant that they never initiate they only answer questions.
They say that, but it’s a technicality because “everybody is always talking to everybody.” They will never lack for opportunities to give an opinion. No one says boo without consulting their TV partners.
LikeLike
Arkstfan,
Carriage fees are withering? ESPN makes something like $8+ billion per year in carriage fees in the US. Plus advertising revenue, which is growing as sports is the main live TV drawing viewers.
Yes streaming is growing, and ESPN is making money there too. But people vastly underestimate the money still in cable TV fees.
LikeLike
ESPN has gone from 98.5 million homes to 76 million. At just under $8 per month per household that’s real money.
The optimistic estimate is they will drop to 71 million by the end of the year. The pessimistic estimate is it will drop below 65 million by the end of the year.
I think withering is the correct word
LikeLike
At last check, ESPN is now up to $10/month (helps to counter the drop in subscriptions). Sure they are slowly losing revenue, but it’s still a huge revenue stream. When they aren’t making billions from it, then it will stop being important.
And they are also in the streaming market, so they are making gains there. They get people to pay for streaming subscriptions that get them they same revenue.
LikeLike
No Duke is also a big warning of it being more rumor than truth. UNC is not leaving Duke and ESPN wouldn’t dream of killing off that rivalry. Those two schools are worth more combined than apart.
LikeLike
@Frank – Trying to make some sense of that tweet has led me to this bit of crack pottery.
The ACC schools granted their media rights to the ACC who intern sold them to ESPN. ESPN tells the SEC that they will pay X for N number of ACC defectors. The SEC issues the invitations and the ACC defectors follow the conference bylaws to withdraw. ESPN tells the ACC they will maintain the pro-rata distribution (~17 million) to the remaining members. Who in this scenario can claim any injury? ESPN still has the defectors rights until 2036, the ACC’s bylaws were followed, and no remaining ACC school is getting any less money. The only downside is it will probably allow Notre Dame to slip away.
The next step would involve some level of the PAC/ACC alliance or merger. Taking the ACCN national and including what’s left of the PAC.
LikeLike
We both attended Illinois, we both live in the Western Suburbs, we both follow Swimswam and post about realignment on Frank the Tank’s Slant. The more I learn about you, the more I think you and I may be the same person.
On a more serious note, you are right about Braden Keith. It’s surprising he would have connections like this (though as you note UVa’s women’s swim program is the best in the country right now), but he’s not a sensationalist either.
LikeLike
Do they have every incentive, though? Maybe they don’t want those properties going to Fox and this is a way to secure them. And if they are canceling their ACC contract, would they be increasing the contract for the SEC at a rate that means they are paying more money? Maybe they actually profit off of this.
LikeLike
Note: that is an actual reporter for a site that covers NCAA swimming…it’s certainly possible that he has a source that the normal NCAA football/basketball reporters don’t have. Of course his source might not have the whole story.
Here’s the article where it’s reported: https://swimswam.com/source-virginia-north-carolina-florida-state-clemson-in-talks-to-join-sec/
LikeLike
I have been reading that ND’s Swarbrick, who is likely intimately familiar with ACC school politics, has been talking to Clemson. I know that Clemson is not an AAU school but, with all the talk about ND wanting “southern exposure”, would bringing ND and Clemson into the BiG together be a possibility?
LikeLike
Last night we had a promotion and relegation proposal for conference scheduling. Today we have ESPN wanting out of their ACC deal and Clemson going to the B1G with Notre Dame instead of Stanford? We have officially entered the ‘throw crap at the wall’ and see what sticks’ phase of realignment discussions! Keep up the great work folks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Swarbrick talks to a lot of people. Of all the schools ND might want to bring along to the Big Ten, Clemson seems one of the less likely.
LikeLike
Maybe Swarbrick is indicating when Notre Dame will be ready to join the B1G (2036) by floating Clemson as a partner.
LikeLike
Apparently 6 exits is the magic number for the ACC’s GOR to spring leaks..IF UNC goes to SEC they’ll have to find partnerships for field hockeu, Lacrosse, rowing, wrestling etc. Match up perfectly with B1G sports (swap fencing with hockey). On the down side they see huge warning signs with how Maryland has adopted to B1G cultural and lack of fan enthusiasm.
LikeLike
Not going to happen because there’s not going to be 6+ exits and the remaining schools would fight tooth and nail.
There’s billions on the line here, nobody has even come close to legally challenging a GOR and it’s not going to start now.
Doesn’t matter how many leaks come out of the ACC schools, I’d be completely shocked if anybody tried to poach one now.
Texas/OU still haven’t figured out a way to enter the SEC before 2025, and we’re supposed to believe that the ACC/ESPN deal is going to get blown up 14 years early?
LikeLike
If you actually believe the ACC is going to remain in tact for the duration of that contract, as currently structured, I don’t know what to tell you. The only way Clemson & Co don’t leave is if the SEC simply doesn’t want them, which is possible. As for Texas and Oklahoma, they have every incentive to hold their breath for a couple years to avoid a buyout.
LikeLike
It’s hard to see; they have a 14 year GOR and TV deal in place; just hard to see anything happening with the ACC until 2032-2033.
LikeLike
That’s a suicide compact for every ACC school in football terms, therefore it won’t survive. At least some of the schools don’t want it, and ESPN doesn’t want to gut every ACC school’s football program. That isn’t in ESPN’s long-term interest.
LikeLike
Everyone said the CFP would expand early, no way the 4-team deal lasted the whole 12 years.
Everyone said UT and OU would leave the B12 early, no way they’d stay the whole 3 years.
The ACC GOR may or may not last, but there’s no evidence of it failing so far. Until all parties view it as a bad deal, it seems likely to stay in place.
LikeLike
Well you make a good point about all the sports that the SEC doesn’t sponsor that are big at UNC and Virginia. Add that to the fact the prior administrator of UNC who Cj was posted above said there would be issues if UNC left Duke and Nc State and neither are in that guys reports leads me to believe it’s complete crap.
LikeLike
The GOR is available online. There is nothing about it being invalid if 6 members want it to be.
LikeLike
Did you really think I was implying there was a contractual stipulation that stated ‘If six teams leave’? I think that fact might have surfaced by now. There are arguments of unconscionability etc. that can be used to break a contract, not sure many contracts actually spell it out for you.
LikeLike
Pretty hard to argue “unconscionable” when every P5 league except the SEC has one of these, and the folks signing them are pretty sophisticated. They knew what they were agreeing to. No school yet has gotten out of a GoR before it expired, which for the ACC is 14 years from now.
If your argument is “unconscionability,” that would be litigated for years with no certain outcome, since there is no precedent that says it will work. The schools on the other side — Wake Forest, Syracuse,…. — are not going to give up easily, since they have no fallback if the departing schools succeed.
LikeLike
You’re a piece of work! 😂 I never said I would of use that argument, I just gave it as an example. Obviously the ACCs legal team crafted that GOR to be air tight. Any successfully argument is going.to have to begin with a coordinated exodus of several members. Is FSU/Clemson/Miami/ UNC and Virginia enough to cripple the conference’s viability? Who knows, but even if they couldn’t argue their way out of it, a negotiated settlement would be the likely outcome. Fourteen years of SEC payouts will be worth it.
LikeLike
“.IF UNC goes to SEC they’ll have to find partnerships for field hockey, Lacrosse, rowing, wrestling etc”
This is vastly overrated by posters:
1) Some of these will become SEC sports if these ACC schools join. In fact, the prestige of the schools in those sports might encourage other SEC schools to start programs. If you need to start a new women’s sport because of title 9, women’s lacrosse is a lot more desirable if you’ll be in the same conference as UNC.
2) For other sports, UNC and whoever else will easily find conferences to join as associate members. They offer prestige and a desirable opponent. The conference that makes the most sense would be…the ACC. They might be angry at first, but they would only be harming themselves if they refused (note that after a few years in, I think, the MAC; Missouri wrestling is currently in the Big 12). If the ACC doesn’t accept them, just about any other conference that offers those sports would (the Big East probably being the next-best option).
2 SEC schools play women’s lacrosse
2 current & 2 future SEC schools have women’s rowing
1 current & 1 future SEC school have wrestling
2 SEC schools have men’s soccer
Note that if the SEC starts conference play in any of these sports, associate members might then join from other conferences.
While looking at ACC sports…i just noticed UNC has a women’s gymnastics program and the ACC is only going to start offer that in a year or two. It will be a major step up for them to join SEC gymnastics.
LikeLike
You are correct it won’t be a big factor at all in regards to leaving the ACC. However UNC is going to have a choice as to either the SEC or the Big Ten. One conference matches it academic profile and has all of the sports it sponsors while the other does not. Since choosing between the SEC and Big Ten will be relatively equal regarding money, little things can swing the decision.
IMO I think UNC decides based on how many of its partners, ie UVA, Duke, it can take with them.
LikeLike
Texas/OU *still* haven’t been able to negotiate an exit from the Big 12 GOR which ends in 2025 after a full 12 months has passed since they joined the SEC.
And we’re supposed to believe the ESPN is going to blow up their own cheap deal with the ACC that’s locked in until 2036 (14 years from now) with a GOR?
Sounds like somebody at Florida State/Clemson is leaking news to destabilize the ACC.
They probably want ND to rush into the Big Ten so the SEC feels forced to take them eventually.
Irony in all this is, we could reach some sort of stable equilibrium beyond 2036 if the SEC doesn’t feel like going past 16 and ND stays out of the Big Ten (which also would stay at 16).
LikeLike
I doubt Fox is willing to make it easier for OU and Texas thus the delay.
LikeLike
It’s between them and the conference though.
If the conference accepts a payment, let’s just say $60 million from each school to leave a year early, they could be out in 2024 and in the SEC.
GOR is just between the schools and conference. Obviously Fox might dock the Big 12 contract a bit of money for that last year, but you’d assume that the conference would make that up from the Texas/OU payments.
LikeLike
@z33k – Yes, good point about the possible equilibrium for the next decade-plus.
It goes back to the critical overall story that the Big Ten and SEC just added *whales* to their leagues. Even “big fish” that might have looked like enticing expansion candidates a week ago may no longer actually make money for those conferences anymore. ND is certainly a whale and UNC might be in that category. (UNC might have inordinate strategic value above its athletic value due to it being the specific territory that sits between the Big Ten and SEC footprints.) Everyone else that we would have previously considered to be a great addition to the SEC and/or Big Ten (maybe even schools like Clemson or UVA) might be in that “big fish” category that doesn’t cut it now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah the more I think about it, I’m just not sure how guaranteed expansion would be outside of a land grab at the Mid-Atlantic and ND.
ND, UNC (+ UVA) are the 3 I can see that are still the “obvious” grabs.
ND is obvious for all reasons, and then UNC is going to be a sheer land grab given its the only top 10 population state not in the Big Ten or SEC.
I think that the Big Ten could make Oregon/Washington work if it wanted to finesse the financial numbers, but there may also just not be an appetite to put them on the schedule if a 16 team conference can see most teams twice every 4 years with a 3-6-6 cycle.
Either way, I don’t buy anything at all to do with the ACC anytime soon, those ACC schools are not likely to announce a move until 2033 at the earliest.
I’m also skeptical that UNC or UVA would be a first mover; very skeptical that either will be in the first schools out; they’ll both likely reach out to both conferences to ensure they have spots available, but I doubt either is a first mover.
If Clemson/FSU don’t find spots elsewhere, UNC/UVA could just stay.
LikeLike
Right. If there was truly a desire for a land grab, every single school in the Pac-12 would take an invite to the Big Ten (or SEC, for that matter) right now. Everyone except for Washington State and Oregon State is bringing a combo of a top media market along with meeting the academic requirements. (I know Arizona State is on the borderline with it being a non-AAU member, but their location directly in Phoenix is a huge differentiator.)
Yet, we’re not seeing a mass annexation of the West Coast schools by the Big Ten. If the argument is that UVA ought to be added because it’s a top academic school in a major market with great recruiting, both Cal and Stanford are even better academic schools in a bigger market with even better recruiting… and they don’t have to deal with getting out of a restrictive GOR agreement. If Oregon and Washington don’t bring enough money, then why would that be the case for, say, Georgia Tech? It’s crazy how much the calculus has changed.
We effectively have to unlearn what we previously thought would be a great expansion candidate for a league like the Big Ten. The pre-June 30th standards are effectively irrelevant now. The bar is SO much higher at this point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see the B10 grabbing any ACC schools before the end of their GOR.
Stanford + Cal to the B10 is a real possibility. I definitely would grab them if I ran the B10, with or without ND.
If Stanford, Cal, UW, UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech are added (+ND to round to 24), the B10 would have 17 of the 18 schools in the Times international uni rankings that play FBS football (the other one is Texas). Those 17 would also be higher than the lowest Ivy (Dartmouth) and make up roughly a third of the top American unis.
I do hope the powers that be think beyond football when it comes to revenues.
LikeLike
These ACC/ESPN “void the contract” rumors feel more like a power play by FSU and Clemson to demand greater revenue sharing or something else.
Sounds like a leak to destabilize this arrangement that Kliavkoff/Phillips are trying to arrange with ESPN.
ESPN is probably involved in trying to stabilize both conferences by putting Pac-12 third tier rights in some kind of combination with the ACC Network.
Clemson/FSU probably want to try to use this to either get a free exit from the ACC (not going to happen) or put pressure on the ACC to move to a more meritocracy based payment structure.
LikeLike
If the ACC membership stands pat, I don’t see how folding the Pac 12 network into the ACC network really helps them. Yeah, they can now charge more in the western states, but that’s offset by having to split the payout among more schools. It would only make sense if they could raise the base price in ACC states or in neutral states (like Ohio or Louisiana), but I don’t see this leading to a significant rate increase. Maybe they would get a large increase in national add buys?
Now, if some ACC schools were being released from the GOR to join the SEC or ACC, I could see this proposal helping the remaining schools keep their payouts from falling. With buyout payments from the departing schools, they might even see a net increase.
LikeLike
This morning on the local The Fan in Columbus (97.1 FM), a reporter who covers Clemson and the ACC said he thought the buyout for Clemson would be $300 million. That might not include the ACC exit fine of $50 million. Undoubtedly the cost gets smaller as we near 2036, but for now, if his figures are accurate, the exit cost seems prohibitive.
LikeLike
@bob sykes – $300 million wouldn’t shock me at all. I seem to recall that Notre Dame would likely need to pay $150 million or more to get out of its ACC GOR obligations that don’t even include football rights. It ought to be significantly higher for any full ACC member to get those GOR obligations waived.
LikeLike
If ND’s obligation is $150m without football, I have to think Clemson is more than $300m.
LikeLike
A contrarian view that the college championship game has been a disaster for colleges in general:
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/07/02/the_slow-motion_suicide_of_college_football_840502.html?fbclid=IwAR0xkvFV6kDrvDXZ6Zrl_G8p_CzQYfsmnvZOYdAr31zpT2RHAp3lwmTnXYU
LikeLike
I agree with the author re CFP.
I much preferred the bowl system; determining a national champion simply isn’t necessary. Or desirable,
Certainly a minority view.
Given what the situation will be in 2025 an beyond (as suggested by a commenter here) I’d prefer that the B1G and SEC champions/runners up face off in a Rose/Sugar Bowl rotation each year.
I know… fat chance.
Too bad.
LikeLike
I much preferred the bowl system; determining a national champion simply isn’t necessary. Or desirable.
Fans tend to prefer the system they first knew. It’s highly unlikely that if you arrived on Earth today, knowing only the system we have now, you would come up with the old bowls as a better idea.
Eventually there will be a generation of fans who know only the playoff. When they learn from history that we used to have a championship decided by votes instead of games, most will say, “Wow! What a ridiculous system!!”
LikeLike
@ Marc
You are correct re new generation of fans.
Consider though that the at least some playoff participants will be selected by votes. There is simply no objective way to determine the 8 – 16 best (most deserving?) teams in any given year. How do you value a 3 loss SEC runner up (or even an also-ran) v an undefeated AAC team? Or an undefeated PAC 10 team? Or any team from a lesser conference with only one loss? Subjectively.
That may work reasonably well in a tournament with 32 or 68 qualifiers. But in FBS(?) it leaves a lot to be desired.
I do really miss the weekly no limit Hold ’em element in College Football.
LikeLike
A sizeable minority, but a minority. I think the bowl system was a real drag on college football. The top teams often couldn’t meet.
The two team BCS was a vast improvement.
But I do think the 4 team college football playoff has been bad for the sport. Its lead to a handful of schools being dominant and dominating, not just regional recruiting, but national recruiting. The latest round of realignment is partially a response to how Ohio St., Alabama, Georgia and Clemson are dominating national recruiting.
The need to expand to 8 or 12 and maybe 16 as soon as they can.
LikeLike
@bullet – One thing that the 4-team playoff did was create a musical chairs game among the P5 because, simply by structure, at least one of the P5 champs was going to get left out per year. Entire conferences weren’t looked at as being weak if they didn’t make the National Championship Game in the 2-team BCS era, but it has been punitive to miss or be out of the 4-team CFP race. Even in the BCS days, there were still a lot of stakes nationally to winning the Big Ten or then-Pac-10 to make it to the Rose Bowl. That’s effectively gone now where all of the energy nationally is focused on who is getting into the top 4.
That’s exactly how the Pac-12’s perception got dragged down the past few years. Even though the league actually had solid depth, the CFP system disproportionately rewards conferences that are able to have 1 elite team (like the ACC with Clemson) regardless of how the rest of the league performs.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m an unabashed playoff supporter and I’d still take the 4-team playoff 1000 times over the old systems. However, I totally agree that we need to move to an 8 or 12-team playoff. I’m still miffed that the conferences couldn’t come on a compromise on the 12-team playoff earlier this year. For all of the things that these colleges and conferences do for money, the fact that they keep rejecting playoff proposals that the fans would actually want AND make a ton of money on top of it boggles my mind.
I think the Pac-12 now rues the decision to vote against the expanded playoff and the ACC might be at that point, too. Going forward, the playoff system (whatever it might be) is going to be almost entirely about what the SEC and Big Ten want and the auto-bids for the top 6 conference champs may no longer be there.
LikeLike
What happens to public perception of fairness and general interest when 3 loss SEC/B1G teams receive at large slots and undefeated or 1 loss champs of lesser conferences are left out?
Or should that team be included what happens to tv ratings for the playoff when they are (regularly) crushed by the 3 loss school?
LikeLike
@jog267 – On that front, I think fans eventually adjust their perceptions of what’s a “good” or “bad” to align with the new competitive reality and/or playoff system.
The 2020 Chicago Bears were the definition of a frustratingly mediocre 8-8 team led by Mitch Trubisky that would get steamrolled by anyone with a scintilla of talent. By my own eyes that were used to performance standards from when I was growing up, that should have been a team where the only interesting question was whether it ought to tank for a better draft pick.
Instead, the NFL moved to 14 total playoff teams that year (up from 12) and that meant that the Bears were not only in the playoff race until the last week of the season, but actually made it as a playoff team.
Fans are still adjusting to this reality where teams that would have been otherwise out of the playoff race by the end of September are now still in it near or at the end of the year. The frame of reference of what’s a team in contention for a playoff spot is taking some adjustment and that would presumably be the same for college football going forward.
LikeLike
A larger playoff from the get go possibly changes everything. A lower ranked PAC-12 making it and advancing around has better “aura” and likely more viewers with more playoff relevant games.
Too bad so sad. PAC-12 was drug kicking and screaming into BCS and CFP and didn’t want bracket expansion. Short term decisions don’t always make for good long term decisions.
I enjoyed the old system because it was fun that two, three, or even four games might have an impact. But I don’t miss the histrionics over split decisions
LikeLike
@Frank
The flaw in your analogy is that NFL playoff criteria is entirely objective, set in April, and settled entirely on the field. No committee is inventing/voting on criteria post facto.
I do agree that perception of fans will adjust to the new reality.
The problem as I see it has two elements 1) Diminishment of fan interest over time; 2) Political.
LikeLike
A number of NCAA sports have a committee to decide postseason participants. Fans are OK with it. You just need more teams to make it fair.
In basketball, for example, an 8 seed is the lowest ever to win the tournament—and that has only happened once (Villanova 1985). There is always a 69th team that can complain they didn’t make the field, but there is virtually a 100% chance that the actual best team is somewhere among the 68 who do get picked.
Football won’t ever have a 68-team field, but the 12-team proposal would have had an extremely high probability (maybe not 100%) that the best team would be included. The committee’s role is vastly reduced when the top six conference champs are in automatically, and any excluded team is (at most) the #7 that didn’t win a conference.
LikeLike
@Mark
I would agree that 6+ autobids negates my premise. I just don’t see that happening.
Zero is most likely; perhaps there won’t be any agreement on a playoff format.
LikeLike
@Marc, that is the beauty of the basketball tournament and baseball as well.
People may argue a different team should have been last in but that’s just filler for the talking heads few people care other than those offended their team wasn’t last in and some of the fans of the team last in who don’t want their team besmirched.
NFL has 14 spots for 32 teams. FCS 24 for a bit over 100. A 12 or 16 playoff won’t cut off who should be last in but the bigger it is the less people care about last in and first out.
While I see some merit to an FCS sized event that’s another week. NFL can sustain 5 (thanks to off week) but it’d be hard to keep the drama up with 5 weeks of games.
LikeLike
jog267 – I’m with you. I greatly preferred the old days before the playoffs, even before the BCS (though I was okay with that).
My main point thought is “why does there have to be a national champion?” I always thought the beauty of college football is that for every team just winning as many games as possible was a goal and all teams had kinda different objectives of what was “success”. For some that might mean getting to a winning record is an accomplishment. Others it was beating a rival. Other making a NYD bowl. Others going undefeated. Whatever. But a 9-3 season was better than a 7-5 season even if neither got you anywhere near a “championship”.
I actually loved the uniqueness of college football compared to, well, every other sport. I know for many others that was not satisfying. But I just lament the continuous move toward being NFL lite. We are already too playoff obsessed in the country, but we’ve lost the one sport where that wasn’t really a thing. Is there something wrong with having a sport where the regular season is kinda the whole point?
I know I’m just an old man yelling at a cloud, but it makes me sad.
LikeLike
The uniqueness especially but traditions and pageantry also played a role in capturing my imagination.
The regular season was about winning as many games as possible while improving and learning things about one’s self along the way. Bowl games were both rewards and rare intersectional matchups.
A bit romanticized view perhaps… but mostly true.
My preferred plausible (however unlikely) outcome now is for the B1G and SEC champs to meet annually in a Jan 1 bowl game which concludes the season.
Here’s hoping playoff negotiators fail to reach any agreement.
LikeLike
A reminder that for every 25 rumors, maybe one will prove true.
LikeLike
True that.
I will say from experience there are some dummies in the world.
Writer A may say School 1&2 are going to need look at joining the intercontinental conference and before the day is out people are claiming it’s happening
LikeLike
@Marc – LOL! That’s true. I will say that someone reached out to me about the Big Ten adding USC a couple of months ago. This person has been wrong about 99% of the rumors they’ve put out there, so I didn’t take it seriously at all. On this one, though, they were right. Whether they actually had legit info or it was just a super lucky timely guess/wish is up for debate.
LikeLike
My guesses tend to whiff because so often the moves are dribs and drabs, a series of lose two add two rather than big picture moves.
CUSA in its old form and now new form as AAC has been easier to predict because they’ve done bigger plays.
I did miss one of four on Sun Belt guessing WKU over ODU.
LikeLike
An interesting observation for Pac-12 expansion – you can start at Laramie (U of Wyoming), drive south on I-25 thru Fort Collins (Colorado State), Boulder (U of Colorado) and into Colorado Springs (Air Force Academy) in three hours. Four Division 1 football programs in three hours.
Another interesting observation – you can start in Logan, Utah (Utah State), drive south on I-15 thru Salt Lake City (U of Utah) and into Provo (BYU) in two hours. Three Division 1 football programs in two hours.
LikeLike
OK, Colin M, I’ll bite. What does that even mean? It doesn’t involve adding Hawaii, BYU, Colorado State and Air Force to the Pac, does it?
Here is a sentence from John Wilner’s column today, which contends that any additional universities would need to bring 30 million in annual revenue to break even! “Unless (expansion involves) a school that can find its way to the main-platform windows, its value is the same as the others in the bulk bin.”
The only add on you mentioned that is anywhere close to that revenue figure would be BYU- and they don’t fit culturally.
LikeLike
Even if BYU were a fit, they would need to come with a second school. All of the available remaining candidates are so far off the mark that there is likely no way the numbers could work, even assuming BYU on its own were acceptable.
Bear in mind, unless they raid the Big XII, every school they might consider was already rejected by the Big XII, which was in more desperate shape than the Pac is now.
LikeLike
LargeR, there aren’t any additional universities would need to bring 30 million in annual revenue to the Pac-12. That is a fairy tale. The Pac-12 is already into Plan B. It doesn’t make any difference that they don’t want to be there.
The Big XII is getting ready to eat them alive if they don’t wake up and consolidate some western schools into what is left of the Pac-12.
LikeLike
The PAC is where the B12 was when A&M and Mizzou exited. WA & OR are not as good as TX & OK; however, if the 10 stay together they should get competitive $$. Since the PAC has no grant of rights and the contract is terminating it is just proper due diligence to compare what $$ will be paid by the PAC and B12. If the PAC adds members that will lower the PAC payout and make it more likely that a couple of PAC schools move to the B12. Since 8 does not work well that will cause a downward spiral as schools that were on the fence would than jump. The prime reason the PAC went to 12 was for a CCG, and that can now be held with 10.
The B12 exit fees are 2 years of distributions (vs 1 year for ACC). This is in the conference bylaws and does not expire anytime soon. To join the PAC one of the 8 current B12 schools will have to pay this huge fee and forfeit their share of the TX/OK exit fees. Since the GOR is expiring they could leave in 2025 with media rights. The B12 exit fee is why the talks is about PAC schools going to B12 and not the other way.
It is TBD what the value of the new PAC is if FOX holds to what it stated and does not bid. That leaves it to ESPN to buy the PAC out of trouble if they want to keep the PAC intact. The PAC has 1.5 premium games per year (WA-OR and Standford-Notre Dame every other year).
Although the PAC has bigger markets than the B12 those markets have a low density of college football fans. I expect the $$ will be much closer than estimated on this board. If the B12 was trying to get Stanford or California that would introduce the culture issue. Not sure it applies to Utah or the Arizona schools.
LikeLike
The Big XII is getting ready to eat them alive if they don’t wake up and consolidate some western schools into what is left of the Pac-12.
No one realigns to lose money. As bad as their situation may be now, diluting their payout can make it worse. Every school you are thinking of was already rejected by the Big XII when it was in a similar situation. None of those previously rejected schools has gotten materially better.
LikeLike
Well, BYU was previously rejected by the Pac-12 but I imagine they’d pass muster now. And if the Big XII raids the Pac-12 for Arizona-ASU-Colorado-Utah and possible Washington-Oregon, most of the schools that I named will be getting another look.
LikeLike
Stanford and California will try to keep the P10 together. Both athletic departments are running a deficit and neither school needs athletics for prestige, students, etc. If there is a raid that takes most of the P10 (but not them) these schools will go independent or just shut down football or all athletics. Playing in the Mountain West (even if renamed PAC) will damage their reputation. UCLA playing Michigan while California plays Fresno State is not an optic they will want to promote.
LikeLike
Colin,
There is zero chance Cal and Stanford would approve adding BYU. I question whether Utah would either. That may not be enough to block them anymore (does it need to be unanimous in the P12?), but I doubt if the others want to override them for marginal (at best) gains.
LikeLike
Wilner’s $30m number seems pretty high if Oregon and Washington are each only worth $30m. I believe that only one other school (Stanford) is considered to be worth more. That leaves 7 schools potentially dragging the average below $30m – perhaps well below – unless you think ASU, Arizona, Cal, Colorado, and Utah are pretty close behind.
LikeLike
I think when you combine markets (Seattle, SF, Denver, Phoenix, SLC) and brands (UW, UO, CU, …), that many of the P12 schools might be pretty similar. Obviously WSU and OrSU are a drag on the average. I’d think UO and UW might be worth a little more than that, but I’m no expert.
LikeLike
Washington and Oregon are worth way more than $30 million each. That estimate was silly.
They’re probably a third or more of the remaining value in the 10 team conference.
Probably like $120 million combined for all tiers.
LikeLike
Stanford and Cal are worth the most of the remaining Pac members. UO definitely isn’t worth a ton more than $30mm by itself.
People are really overweighing football success and underweighing market size.
Someone posted a YouTube video of a guy who looked at what viewership the rest of the Pac drew on TV (conference games but taking out games vs the LA schools). UO was the best and UW 2nd but the non-LA Pac schools (including UO) were really all about the same. No major differences between them.
LikeLike
View at Medium.com
5 year averages of viewership. UO, UW, and Stanford are all about the same (1.3-1.4M). The rest of the P12 are at 0.9M or lower (with WSU leading). Cal is about half of Stanford (no ND games).
UO vs Stanford is the typical brand vs market debate. For comparison, NE outdrew NW 2:1 despite being worse at CFB lately because of brand over market, so clearly brand can win out (and schedule – NE played OSU a lot). I think most non-experts struggle to gauge how much one is worth vs the other, and there’s no way to know for sure.
LikeLike
The video Richard mentioned is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8Rommye18
LikeLike
Besides the annual Notre Dame game, Stanford actually won the P12 one year. The other winners were Washington (twice), Oregon and USC. Although WSU had .9M viewers those were the Mike Leach years (4 winning) and he could win or lose a game late in the 4th. I doubt that will be sustained. Oregon State had .3M (worse than Kansas but above Rutgers).
LikeLike
I would grant that third tier wise, Stanford/Cal are probably much more valuable than Oregon; probably double or triple value considering they’re great comprehensive programs especially with the sports that are likely to be on those nets.
But first-second tier is all about national ratings.
“Over the course of those five seasons, the Pac-12 produced 21 games at/above the 4 million mark.
Oregon was involved in eight, followed by USC and Washington with six each, then Utah with four.”
Stanford was involved in 2, Cal involved in 0.
It’s hard to gauge, but based on Pac-12 Networks data that I’ve seen, can make the argument that Stanford/Cal are probably worth $30 million a year to the pac-12 Networks while Oregon/Washington are probably worth $20 million.
I’d estimate though that first-second tier wise, Oregon/Washington are probably worth around $80-100 million combined while Stanford/Cal are probably worth $40-60 million combined.
LikeLike
As the author said there are a lot of variables not factored into these numbers.
With that said, if you rank the Big 12 and Pac 12 schools, it goes like this:
1. USC
2. Oklahoma St.
3. TCU
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
6. Washington
7. West Virginia
8. UCLA
9. Baylor
10.Texas Tech
11. Washington St.
12. Utah
13. Iowa St.
14. Cal
15. BYU (Ind)
16. Arizona St.
17. Kansas St.
18. Houston (AAC)
19. Colorado
20. UCF (AAC)
21. Arizona
22 Cincinnati (AAC)
23. Kansas
24. Oregon st.
LikeLike
Has anyone done the math to calculate adjusted-TV-viewership numbers, per school? Presumably, you’d want to adjust for opponent, platform/network, and time slot, at a minimum. It’d be nice to have something like Television Viewers Calculated Above Average School (TVCAASch), as a metric to determine which schools actually bring the most eyeballs.
LikeLike
And published it publicly? Sort of – but usually for just a subset of schools. There’s links to the data for the B12 and P12 schools with all games against USC, UCLA, UT and OU removed for example. There’s a YouTube link above of someone who broke it down by network for the P12 schools. The problem is that there are so many variables and so few data points. You just can’t control for everything (network, time, opponent, other games on, quality of teams, outside issues, calendar effects). The end result isn’t worth investing too much effort. Usually a multiyear average controlling for a couple of variables is as far as it goes.
LikeLike
Yeah, there’s a lot of data removed – not generally a good statistical approach – for most of what I’ve seen, regarding TV viewership. For example, considering Oregon’s games against SEC/B1G competition is useful for calculating what other PAC schools might be worth, in similar situations, because we have data to compare how the other PAC schools draw eyeballs in other situations, in which the other PAC schools have routinely competed. Similarly, you don’t ignore a young baseball prospect’s minor league stats, when trying to project how they’ll perform in their first full season, after a blistering September call-up; those hundreds of minor league plate appearances, across several leagues and levels, need to be considered. Unfortunately, it takes more advanced statistical analysis than I have time to learn, to adjust the TV viewership data that is publicly available. But, the internet is big; surely, there’s someone out there with nearly as much curiosity as those of us who are still reading the comments on this blog, and with better mathematical skills and more available time than I. Let me know if any of you stumble upon that analysis or that person – or if that person is you(!?!) – because I’d like to see the results.
LikeLike
That person will not be me. I’m sure the networks have done detailed analysis, but they’ll never publish it. We only hear the end result – how valuable certain schools are to a TV deal.
I did some basic analysis years ago based on bowl games, trying to see how schools did compared to others in the same bowls. But even then, times change, networks change, the number of bowls on at the same time changes, the importance of games change, etc. It’s just really tough to do well.
LikeLike
Assuming realignment is on pause for a few days, let’s discuss the CFP. What are the effects of the most recent changes (OU, UT, UC, UH, BYU, UCF, USC, UCLA)?
Before any of it happened, the subcommittee suggested their 12-team plan:
* The top 6 champs (no minimum criteria to meet)
* Next 6 by committee rankings (champs or not, no caps by conference)
* Top 4 champs get 1st-round byes
* 1st round games played on campus in December (quarters and semis in bowls)
It didn’t pass due to several objections:
* Simultaneous expansion of SEC
* ESPN getting a long extension with the entire CFP and no competition
* Public uproar over the previous 2 things
* No financial sharing details (P12)
* Too many structural changes in CFB all at once (ACC)
* No P5 autobids (B10)
So what may have changed now?
* Since they aren’t tearing up the current deal, it doesn’t require unanimous approval anymore
But if power conferences don’t agree, it’s largely the same thing. The B10 doesn’t have an actual veto, but it’s hard to imagine a CFP without the expanded B10.
* There will be open bidding for the CFP, and it will likely be shared among multiple channels
This should reduce the feeling that ESPN and the SEC are colluding to screw everyone else, especially Fox (and thus all of Fox’s conference partners).
* ACC, B12 and P12 need the extra money even more (as do the G5)
That’s 2 of the 3 objectors that seem more likely to approve something next time. But they are all weakened now, and one of them might even lose power status. Their desires from the CFP may have shifted a little.
* The power structure of conferences is different
There is a VP2 (very powerful 2), a SP3 (semi-powerful 3), and the G5 (also stratified). One can assume the VP2 champs will always be in those top 6 champs. How confident are the SP3 about that? Do they want autobids now? Can they make an argument for them, especially after raiding the AAC? Would they do it at the cost of sharing more money with the G5?
Does the B10 still want autobids? Recall, autobids are part of NCAA football championships.
With the advent of the SP2, do other conferences want some sort of cap (say 3 or 4 teams) from any one conference? Would the VP2 entertain the idea? I think they might if the cap was high enough, and depending on how the revenue sharing worked.
Would people want minimum criteria for a team to make the CFP in the case of autobids (10 wins, top 25, # of P5 wins, …)?
* Because of all the uproar, a lot of the plan didn’t get detailed discussion
First round games on campus was a concern for the B10. I’m sure USC and UCLA wouldn’t mind, but the weather hasn’t changed in the upper midwest. Should everyone but cold weather teams get home games, and they have to move to local neutral sites? That seems unfair. Maybe everyone should have to find a local neutral site.
Presidents never weighed in on the calendar issue.
Nobody discussed the revenue sharing scheme. The current CFP basically has a set distribution regardless of who makes it (except among how the G5 split the $, and ignoring a few million for a team playing). I don’t see that working with 12 teams. And the G5 probably want a larger piece of the pie (I think they’ll get more total $, but a smaller %). Will they do something like the shares system for the NCAA tourney? I don’t believe you can separate discussions of the system from the revenue split, since changes to the system will change the money available and who gets it. The P12 was right to object about that.
* Would the subcommittee even recommend the same plan now?
I would think they really need to start from a clean sheet and re-examine all of their assumptions.
LikeLike
Based on all the articles I read, I’d say Brian’s list of reasons “why a deal wasn’t done” is a superset of the actual ones. No member of the committee nor any media report stepped up with an itemized list of issues that long.
Other than “too much is changing all at once,” we don’t really know what kind of playoff the ACC wanted. The Big Ten’s stated reasons for voting no are probably not the real ones. In probably >95% of seasons, the Big Ten champion would have made the playoff under the proposal. How many years can you find when the Big Ten champ was not one of the six best champs in the sport? I find it hard to believe that the remaining sub-5% probability was the principal reason why the Big Ten voted no.
I would think they really need to start from a clean sheet and re-examine all of their assumptions.
They pretty much did that anyway. The larger committee re-opened just about every decision the subcommittee made. Of course, anyone who has ever served on such a committee would know that your proposal is probably not going to be adopted exactly.
The subcommittee looked at something like 150 playoff formats. I doubt that they feel like they need to go back and repeat all of that. The big committee was down to 4 options when they finally gave up. They will probably reconvene and start again with those 4.
Of course, next time there will be no pretense that the 5 so-called power conferences are equal.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think the B10 was actually thinking of the other P5s, especially the P12, with their autobid stance. With the B10 and P12 long time partners in the Rose Bowl, it helps the B10 if the P12 is considered above the G5. Autobids would cement that difference and potentially strengthen the Rose Bowl.
I was saying they need to start over again now that USC and UCLA are moving (and if any other major moves happen):
* The original plan assumed 5 fairly equal conferences, and that’s no longer true. Is 12 still the right number? Is 6 champs still the right number? Should their be autobids? Should their be minimum qualifications to get an autobid beyond just winning a conference? Should their be caps on conferences?
* Is ND still okay with not being eligible for a bye?
* Does the plan include sufficient flexibility to adapt if a P5 conference disappears, or falls to G5 level, or ND joins a P5, or 2 megaconferences form, or other major structural changes occur?
* Campus sites in the first round? Games in mid-December through mid-January?
* What special roles/rights do the Rose and Sugar Bowl have, if any?
* And with all that, start figuring out how to split the revenue
LikeLike
Brian and I disagree with this, but…
Once the initial shock had subsided, I do not believe the move of Oklahoma & Texas to the SEC changed the outcome — i.e., that the proposal was not accepted. Everyone who posts on this board knew that TX/OK were likely to re-examine their conference options as the Big XII rights approached expiration. Do you think we knew that and they didn’t?
No matter how much they professed to be surprised, shocked, disappointed — whatever you call it — can you really believe that? Only an idiot would have accepted the proposal contingent upon the power conferences being stable. And these guys are not idiots.
Notably, the most aggrieved party by the OK/TX decision was Bob Bowlsby, and his conference voted yes. After losing Texas and Oklahoma, his conference needed an expanded playoff even more than it did before.
LikeLike
I do think the timing mattered, because too many big things were happening at once. The ACC cited that concept as a reason to pause. Others noted that giving ESPN an expansion and extension with no competitive bidding made no financial sense, a concept that several mentioned. That was especially worrisome considering ESPN was also buying UT and OU for the SEC at the same time as this proposal was being made. That didn’t look good to several Fox partners.
LikeLike
I think it was simply an ego trip by the 3 new commissioners upset that they weren’t on the committee. And that they didn’t get Texas and OU.
Now maybe the ACC has some traditionalist presidents who really were against expansion. But the other conferences? Just ego.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff said he favored the plan but needed some financial info before signing. How is that an ego thing?
Phillips said too many things were changing at once (NIL, etc.) – probably at the behest of his presidents. How is that an ego thing?
Warren had multiple issues, including no autobids. Part of it may well have been that the B10 was left out of the subcommittee and thus had not had any time to consider the plan. The process felt rushed to get it approved, and maybe the B10 didn’t like that. I think ESPN getting the whole CFP and an extension without even having to outbid anyone also was an issue (raised by Fox through all 3 Alliance members perhaps).
LikeLike
K also said he supported all plans. Then he voted against. Just pure bs by him.
They still got to vote on all the pieces after that, like the SEC would let the P5 get a lower % than before.
LikeLike
The P5 getting a smaller % from the postseason, but of a bigger pie is actually typical lately. That could easily have happened with CFP expansion, depending on the model.
I think it’s reasonable to want to know if this was a fixed share model like 4-teams was, or if it was based on the number of teams in the CFP from each conference, or if it was based on games played (so winning makes more). That makes a sizable difference to what plans a conference might favor. And for the P12, the fate of the Rose Bowl is tied to the money aspect as well.
People saying they support a general concept and then not approving a detailed plan is typical in organizations. Government does it all the time.
LikeLike
I think the main reason the Big Ten didn’t want to approve the CFP expansion is that it was more advantageous to everyone else except the Big Ten. I was totally against it for that reason (and I’d imagine the Big Ten executives realize that as much as anybody here).
It’s a nebulous thing, but literally everybody else benefits more from expanding and “freezing” the immediate post-Texas/OU situation than the Big Ten.
SEC would be secure with its 16 team footprint and ahead of the Big Ten on a relative basis with the addition of Texas/OU. They’d be getting most of those 6 at-large bids.
ACC and Pac-12 would have been secure with autobids (same for Big 12 though obviously nobody wants their schools at the moment). Group of 5 would have gotten more access and a big financial boost.
Big Ten as the conference tied up with FOX at least through the 2030s through the BTN arrangement was in the worst spot as a result of 1) Big Ten’s main broadcast partner being out of the playoff, and 2) everyone else benefiting more on a relative basis from playoff expansion.
Now the Big Ten can negotiate from a position of strength while also looking at how it wants to try to take ACC teams in the 2030s.
And if we add ND, why not stage inside conference playoffs that lead to big bowl games (i.e. Rose Bowl).
I just don’t see how or why Big Ten would have agreed to the 12 team proposal, literally Big Ten benefited least from that proposal.
LikeLike
The Big 10 would have had the most additional teams in the 12 team model, not the SEC. Sounds like some of you Big 10 fans have little brother syndrome to the SEC.
LikeLike
A bunch of the stances by the Alliance (RIP) leagues made no rational sense, so yeah, I can buy your theory that it was due to ego.
LikeLike
bullet,
https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-playoff-expansion-cfp-format-12-teams
That’s impossible to know with UT and OU moving to the SEC. The B10 had a 1-team edge in the numbers I saw in multiple places, but with OU making the CFP 6 times that swings back to the SEC. And that’s with UT being historically down lately. (USC would’ve made 2, still leaving the SEC way ahead).
And combined, the B10 and SEC would’ve had almost half of all the spots (more than half with the expansions). After seeing that, did anyone rethink the plan?
LikeLike
Yes if you look backwards, maybe Big Ten might have edged SEC for spots.
But looking forwards, there’s no way you could convince me that the SEC doesn’t pull ahead with Texas and OU.
And the bigger issue is the media deal with ESPN.
Big Ten’s TV rights all go through FOX. That was the bigger holdup and a deal breaker.
That reason far outweighs the competitive reason in my mind. Even if the Big Ten has to give up some short-term dollars, not having playoff games on FOX was probably a deal breaker.
LikeLike
“But looking forwards, there’s no way you could convince me that the SEC doesn’t pull ahead with Texas and OU.”
I’m not so sure of that. They’ll both be playing LSU and A&M and Bama now instead of Kansas, K State and Iowa State. Texas’ record for the past five years in the Big XII has been 5-7, 7-3, 8-5, 10-4 and 7-6.
LikeLike
Wilner throws out another option: the ACC and the B12 split the P12.
LikeLike
On the other hand this plan has no chance, but makes such a pretty map I decided to share it.
LikeLike
And one snarky tweet because it made me chuckle.
LikeLike
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/big-ten-expansion-means-revenue-estimate-spikes-especially-with-the-college-football-playoff-per-report/
Dennis Dodd has since deleted the tweet this is based on, but I’ll explain that.
The article is looking at what the new B10 TV deal might be worth. People were saying roughly $1B before adding USC and UCLA, and an expert said they were worth about $200M to the P12 (Dodd’s new tweet said $160-200M, but I’m using Wilner’s expert). I will venture to say they have a lot more value to the B10, playing bigger brands regularly and opening a huge market (and accounting for always increasing sports value).
$1B/14 = $71.4M
$1.2B/16 = $75.0M
$1.3B/16 = $81.3M
So +$5-10M per school in this deal (at least), plus the BTN value. And this is before CFP money, and NCAA tourney money. As with the SEC, these new payouts are going to be huge. And then they’ll expand the CFP.
LikeLike
So are these numbers only regarding the TV contracts being negotiated and not including the BTN payout? If so, what is the typical payout from BTN per team?
LikeLike
That doesn’t include the BTN payout if it’s just the new TV deals.
BTN is generating around $350-400 million in annual revenue (54 million subs * 0.59 cents per sub as of early this year when SBJ reported those numbers).
Not sure how that’s being split though, I’d venture Big Ten schools are getting around $10-15 million per school from that.
LikeLike
Bob,
Yes, all the numbers in the media ($1B +) are just for the tier 1 deal. And most probably don’t even consider the hoops rights that CBS has.
BTN numbers are intentionally hard to find. Schools often lump B10 revenue together. Remember the schools own 39% of it as well as getting a revenue share. Usually I see people say $10-15M per year per school (maybe not during COVID), but that was also back when the B10 owned 49%. It should be a little lower now.
I wonder if the B10 will try to buy back that 10% with the addition of USC and UCLA (as part of their buy-in)?
LikeLike
Wow! I didn’t know they reduced their ownership share. Did they sell it back to FOX?
LikeLike
Yep. It was mentioned in some financial report from Fox but got noticed a few months ago. They sold it back to keep up the revenue despite losing games to COVID.
LikeLike
Bob,
This article has a good explanation of the BTN sale and impact on Big Ten revenues. The B1G sold to keep revenues level during the pandemic. This article has good some numbers for all P5 conferences.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2022/05/20/pac-12-big-ten-big-12-revenue-fell-pandemic/9855686002/
For example, the Big Ten exercised a pre-existing option to sell 20% of its interest in the Big Ten Network to Fox, the company with which it has roughly shared ownership of the network since it was formed in 2006. The deal put about $100 million in cash or receivables on the Big Ten’s books, and the conference said about $3.5 million of that went to each of the 14 member schools in fiscal 2021.
That helped offset the TV revenue decline from what the conference said was a 47% decrease in overall football game inventory across all carriers that resulted from its decision to delay the start of the season and then cancelations that occurred during the season. The Big Ten does not specifically report TV revenue on its tax records, but what it terms “Sports Revenue” fell from nearly $678 million in fiscal 2020 to just over $583 million in 2021.
Overall, the conference reported nearly $680 million in revenue for 2021, down from $769 million in 2020.
But its reported payout to schools fell by much less – to $671 million in 2021, compared to $689 million in 2020. However, the 2021 payout does not take into account roughly $52 million that the schools had to pay back to the conference because the conference set up and financed a COVID testing program. In addition, Maryland and Rutgers received full revenue shares for the first time.
LikeLike
Bob,
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/adding-usc-and-ucla-could-be-huge-for-big-ten-network.html
Here’s some good numbers on BTN and the impact of adding USC and UCLA.
Adding RU and UMD added $48M/year in subscriber fees. USC and UCLA should bring at least $18M/year just from the LA market from subscriber fees. Then add in advertising, other CA markets, etc., and the fact that their addition may get BTN into enough households to qualify for national channel ad rates.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t post a video unless is was worth a person’s time, and this conversation between Andy Staples and (Mr. Notre Dame) Matt.Fortuna of the Athletic is fascinating. It covers everything from GOR to how quickly ND might act. I didn’t realize USC’s Carol Folt is the former Chancellor at UNC. Probably posted too last at night for you guys back east, but check it out.
LikeLike
The biggest open question for ND is exactly how much it would cost them to get out of the ACC. I have seen various estimates, but nobody seems to know.
LikeLike
https://mobile.twitter.com/EL_D05/status/1545228973453578240
If those numbers are even remotely correct, getting out of the GOR will be a drop in the bucket for Notre Dame. It could be something they are negotiating with the Big Ten if the conference will loan out the payment.
If those numbers are correct, it’s not a matter of if Notre Dame will join the Big Ten but a matter of when it will be announced.
LikeLike
Yep, many people seem to forget that the BTN still throws off a good amount of cash. The estimates were that the old 14-school B10 would get $1B for tier 1/2 rights. USC+UCLA add another $200mm in only tier 1/2 rights by themselves. Synergies (of more compelling games) add maybe $100mm. So BTN probably contributing $300-400mm.
Adding ND adds another $100mm or so (so ND pays for itself). No other schools would, but at this point, the B10 is playing with house money, far outdistancing any non-SEC conference and taking in more than the SEC as well, so I would sacrifice a few million in TV revenue to gain even more millions in coming decades by building an academic brand as the only (DivI) conference that is even close to the Ivies. That would pay for itself several times over in more full-pay OOS/international students coming. That means grabbing Stanford & Cal (and maybe UW) now and Duke+UNC+UVa (and maybe GTech) in the future.
LikeLike
Marc,
It would be a negotiated number, so there’s no way to know unless they commit to the path. We’ve seen estimates of $125-175M, but nobody really knows.
But ND has been leaving money on the table for decades for the privilege of being independent and having their own TV network. Money isn’t their primary concern.
Besides, they see upside to the B10 getting on NBC potentially. That gives them lead-ins or following games to help their viewership (as B10 fans gets used to watching NBC on Saturdays). And if NBC no longer only has ND, ND will probably negotiate a better deal with them for losing their special status.
LikeLike
ND has been leaving money on the table for decades for the privilege of being independent and having their own TV network.
The question for Notre Dame is at what point the amount they leave on the table is too big to ignore. Under the terms of the previous deal, the purported intangible benefits of independence were enough to offset the difference. There is probably some number, and I am not saying whether we are there yet, where it can no longer be justified.
LikeLike
Brian, money is _every_ schools’ concern. In the case of ND, though, up to now, they have perceived the cost of less alumni donations due to pissing off alums from joining a conference to outweigh the addition of more TV money.
I think that as old geezers die off (and the B10 becomes richer and making far less money as an “independent” in name tied to a conference tied to an extremely undervalued TV contract starts to seem borderline asinine to anyone with 2 braincells), that calculus will inevitably change. The only question is when the tipping point will come.
So many on here only think of moves in checkers (football) when university presidents are thinking of chess moves.
LikeLike
It’s a concern for ND, but not their primary one. Eventually the gap may be too much for them to accept, but I doubt we’re there yet. Especially if they get a good revenue sharing deal in the new CFP.
Their NBC deal ends in 2025, so right after NBC throws big money at the B10 they’ll need to cough up much more for ND than before, too. That will also help close the gap for a while.
The years in the ACC may slowly soften their alumni towards joining a conference for football, but I think they are still entrenched against it.
I’m not saying money couldn’t ever force the decision, but I don’t think we’re there yet. Rumors have ND’s TV deal trailing the B10’s by tens of millions per year already, and it has been way behind for a long time. Maybe it makes them feel good to do more with less.
LikeLike
One thing about Notre Dame is while it might be the most elitist school in college football, it’s ironically very populist when it comes to listening to its alumni base. The power at ND doesn’t come from a mega-donor (like Phil Knight at Oregon) or key trustee members, but rather that their *entire* alumni base collectively donates at such high levels that it’s an enormous amount in the aggregate. ND alums effectively tithe donations to the school in the same way that they would to the actual Catholic Church.
As a result, collective alumni sentiment has much more power on decisions at ND compared to virtually any other school. Also remember that ND doesn’t separate its athletic department from the main institution in the same way as other schools that need the athletic department to have their own separate funding (meaning those other schools rely on TV funding much more). That has to be factored into any decision for ND. At place like, say, UCLA, there’s no collective alumni fundraising base that would ever compensate for the larger amount of money in the Big Ten even if they the alums were largely against the move. In contrast, ND alums really *can* vote with their dollars in a way that significantly impacts the school’s bottom line (where it’s conceivable that any financial gain from moving to the Big Ten could be lost with an alumni uproar in withholding their high levels of donations).
LikeLike
Yep. Again, Brian, money _is_ ND’s primary concern. They’re not remaining “independent” because of romanticism or some idealistic vision (I’m not even sure what ideal they would be protecting) but because they don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. ND has a famously fiercely loyal alumni base that donates a ton back to ND, and ND perceives those alumni donations to be more valuable than any increase in TV money (because they are; ND alums give back a ton to their alma mater). But with ND essentially only an independent in name only now (they aren’t independent in non-football sports and they essentially play a 5 game conference schedule; that’s different from 9 but not by much) yet all while not enjoying the benefits of being in a Power 2 conference), more and more, maintaining that fiction seems more and more absurd.
I think we’ll see the ND alumni base change their views.
_Especially_ if the B10 forms not just an athletic conference but an academic grouping with the reputation to rival the Ivy League. First by adding Stanford and Cal. Then by adding UVa, Duke, and UNC (maybe GTech). ND will join a conference when the ACC falls apart, and that will happen by the mid-30’s at the latest.
LikeLike
Friend in the Little Rock, Arkansas area looked at getting on the season ticket waiting list and backed out. I’d ask how much but he’s on a cruise in the Mediterranean.
LikeLike
Richard,
Repeating it doesn’t make it any more true the second time. It’s your opinion, and I disagree.
You assume that ND’s preferred state would be to be in a conference to maximize money, and only a fear of losing more money is preventing it. I think they prefer independence and what it does for their brand (and thus student recruiting, alumni egos, etc.), and are willing to be behind on money as long as they can still compete for titles. Independence in other sports is irrelevant to them, their brand is football. And they accepted ACC games for the eastern reach, ease for other sports, and for bowl access (something independents were losing).
LikeLike
And the B10 is showing no signs of wanting to form some super academic league. That may be your dream, but it doesn’t seem to be the B10’s.
They didn’t add USC and UCLA just for an academic boost, they did it for the value of adding their brands and the LA market. They aren’t chasing Stanford and Cal right now because they aren’t financially worth it (they may take Stanford at ND’s request). They aren’t chasing UNC and UVA just for an academic boost, either, they’re doing it for the value of adding VA and NC, plus UNC’s hoops brand.
LikeLike
The 1 year ACC exit fee is based on what the ACC is paying Notre Dame, not a full member distribution. Swarbrick should tell the B1G that Notre Dame does not have any intention of buying out its GOR with the ACC. If the B1G has a problem with that they can contact Notre Dame again in 2036. Except for home men’s basketball games what is anything that ESPN could broadcast really worth? A few lacrosse and hockey games. The B1G can hold all multi-school events at other sites. Due to the FOX / ESPN issue it is going to be very hard to get a reasonable buyout number.
LikeLike
IMO, the B10 is perfectly fine waiting for the ACC to fall apart by the mid-30’s.
In the meanwhile, if I was the B10, ai would form the only conference that can rival the Ivies academically by adding Stanford and Cal now.
LikeLike
I agree that the B10 is in no rush. They’ll wait 12 years if they need to. After all, they stayed at 11 members for 18 years when they could’ve been staging CCGs.
LikeLike
The B10 is perfectly fine waiting for the ACC to fall apart by the mid-30’s.
In the meanwhile, if I was the B20, I would form the only conference that can rival the Ivies in academic prowess by adding Stanford and Cal.
LikeLike
@ Richard – If the final B1G number is 20, Stanford and Cal may be in the mix, but UNC, UVA, and others may be also. If one of the last 4 chairs is reserved for ND the final 3 chairs could go in a number of different directions.
Your comment about ND essentially being in a conference now, just with 5 games instead of 9, and not enjoying the benefits, is spot on. With everyone playing 2 buy-in games that doesn’t leave too many games to provide any real distinction to the alumni donors. With USC, MI, MSU, PU, etc. available as conference games, who besides Navy (and Stanford which may go to the B1G anyway) does that leave for ND with a burning desire to play? ND will probably sit tight and see how the next TV deal and CFB playoff expansion talks go, but who knows.
LikeLike
I agree with you Bob, except I think the B10 could go to 24.
LikeLike
Bob,
Like many schools, ND wants to play games around the country. They want games in FL and TX especially, but also the mid-Atlantic, east coast, and pacific northwest. They have a national alumni base and want to play games near all of them, every few years. They generally have 7 games in Indiana, so that leaves 5 games. One game is in CA. Every other year there is the road Navy game. The 2.5 ACC games get them up and down the eastern seaboard. That leaves places like TX for home and homes.
With USC on board, the B10 can offer some of these same benefits. NYC/DC/LA in conference helps. But the whole south requires OOC games. Maybe they can get Navy to keep moving the game around a lot, which would help. But they’ll still want home and homes in FL and TX fairly often.
LikeLike
SI’s FSU microsite reports that the school is: looking at a move to either the Big Ten or the SEC. As usual with such reports, the sources are unnamed.
The article suggests what a poster on this forum did — that the grant of rights can be torn up if ESPN wants it to be. Presumably, the addition of FSU and at least one other ACC school to the SEC would be lucrative enough to fund that, although no hard numbers are provided. I remain unpersuaded.
I am not clear how FSU thought they could wriggle out of the GOR if they join the Big Ten. You would not expect any help from ESPN in that case. The ACC GOR is shaping up to be one of the dumbest deals ever signed by otherwise smart people.
LikeLike
“The ACC GOR is shaping up to be one of the dumbest deals ever signed by otherwise smart people.”
One sports writer found the right word to summarize the ACC’s TV package: “pitiful”.
LikeLike
We’ve seen the original GOR (before it was amended and extended), there was no exception to it or ability of ESPN to cancel that one; in fact it was just a contract between the schools and ACC, ESPN wasn’t a party to it.
Now maybe they did something to it when they amended it, but I’m highly skeptical that ESPN has any ability to negate the GOR.
All of these ACC scenarios before 2032-2033 seem so much like wishful thinking because there’s not even a hint of an agreement for Texas/OU to get out of their GOR with the Big 12 that ends in 2025.
Nobody is paying $300 million or whatever it would cost to get out of 14 years of a media grant of rights if Texas/OU can’t get out of one that ends in 3 years. They might be able to negotiate one year off but even just one year would likely cost $40-50 million for Texas/OU each.
LikeLike
The original ACC GOR is widely available online and the GOR extension is not. I suspect if there was a reasonable way out of the current GOR at least one of the schools that would prefer to leave now would leak the it to the media. The lawyers have had a while to pick this thing apart and so far nothing of substance has leaked. My gut is telling me this thing holds up for most (if not all) of the remaining years.
LikeLike
Although the extension has not leaked, I doubt that they weakened it. As you say, it was a contract between the ACC and its members. ESPN cannot cancel it directly.
What ESPN could do is offer such a great deal that the ACC’s members agree mutually to disband. Unlike the TX/OU situation, ESPN owns 100% of the rights to both the SEC and the ACC, so they control everything.
I could see ways where perhaps it works. If you are ESPN, you do not need to offer Wake Forest every dollar that FSU and Clemson are worth. You just need to offer them enough where they see the handwriting on the wall. This is not a prediction that it will happen, but it is not impossible.
LikeLike
If all the ACC schools that wanted to leave were going to the SEC, then ESPN could in theory make the rest whole. For that to happen the ACC members would have to dissolve the conference. Problem is there are some schools that prefer the FOX-partnered B1G, some that prefer the SEC, some that would go to either with the right partner(s), and the rest that have no shot at either. How many votes are needed to end the ACC? Without some sort of deal in advance by the power couples (FOX/B1G and ESPN/SEC) how do you get enough votes? Do they flip a coin over ND? There are just too many moving parts for this to ever work in my opinion.
LikeLike
I feel the same way: it might work as a tabletop exercise, but not when you have this many egos who have to somehow agree on the same deal terms, despite a history of not working well together.
I don’t know how many votes it takes to disband the ACC. Let’s say it is a strict majority vote—the best possible case. Even so, there are more than half the schools who’d vote no today because the alternatives are worse. What do you have to pay them?
LikeLike
I posted this upthread about how an ACC school can end up in the SEC, but it either 1) got lost in the mix or 2) is so dumb no one wanted to tell me.
The ACC schools granted their media rights to the ACC who intern sold them to ESPN. ESPN tells the SEC that they will pay X for N number of ACC defectors. The SEC issues the invitations and the ACC defectors follow the conference bylaws to withdraw. ESPN tells the ACC they will maintain the pro-rata distribution (~17 million) to the remaining members. Who in this scenario can claim any injury? ESPN still has the defectors rights until 2036, the ACC’s bylaws were followed, and no remaining ACC school is getting any less money.
LikeLike
If ESPN wants an ACC to SEC move to happen, they can do it.
Most likely they would provide a little sweetener to the ACC.
The question is whether ESPN wants that.
LikeLike
The question is whether ESPN wants that.
That’s the rub. The ACC’s contract is so low that Florida St’s games have to be immensely profitable. ESPN would have to calculate that FSU vs the SEC’s powers would more profitable. Some 2017 data points from SMW:
Alabama-Florida State delivered a 6.9 rating and 12.3 million viewers on ABC’s Saturday Night Football over the weekend, up 50% in ratings and 55% in viewership from Alabama-USC last year (4.6, 7.9M) and up 60% and 55% respectively from Alabama-Wisconsin in 2015 (4.3, 8.0M).
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017/09/alabama-fsu-ratings-abc-most-watched-opening-weekend-michigan-florida-penn-state/
LikeLike
I think you are right, but fewer than half of the ACC’s members would get Big Ten or SEC invites. ESPN would need to make the others whole. Every deal can be terminated at some price, but in this case the price seems to be very high.
Maybe the ACC castaways form a new conference in tandem with the Pac-X castaways. ESPN offers enough money for that conference that they all say, “Done!” I am not saying this is probable, only that perhaps it is possible. It has a lot of moving parts.
Who in this scenario can claim any injury?
If you read the GoR, it refers specifically to the benefits of being in a stable conference — it is not purely a financial deal. You can offer Boston College the same money as they are getting today, but they are no longer part of the ACC as presently constituted. They are in a new conference that lacks the most attractive members of the old one.
The thing is, dissolving the ACC requires a super-majority vote. This gives the low-value schools a lot of power right now, provided they use it wisely. Their alternative is to bury their heads until the 2030s, when the high-value schools will have all the power.
But as we saw in the playoff negotiations (which required unanimity), several conferences did indeed bury their heads in the sand. As a result, the next time they negotiate, they will be in a weaker position.
LikeLike
I think you are right, but fewer than half of the ACC’s members would get Big Ten or SEC invites. ESPN would need to make the others whole. Every deal can be terminated at some price, but in this case the price seems to be very high.
That’s the beauty of my plan. The GOR is still intact, the ACC bylaws are followed, and ESPN makes everyone whole financially. The ACC isn’t dissolved and there isn’t any vote. BC can be mad someone left, but (just like when Maryland left) there isn’t anything they can do about it.
LikeLike
For this to work, the ACC has to disband. Has to.
Under the GOR, if Florida State leaves, the remaining ACC schools get all of their media rights, and FSU receives nothing. Mathematically, ESPN could pay all of FSU’s fees to the rump ACC, and then FSU could sell a sell a twig in Tallahassee for $100 million per year. Those numbers simply cannot work. FSU is a valuable property, but not so valuable that ESPN would be willing to pay for it twice.
LikeLike
@Marc –
For this to work, the ACC has to disband. Has to.
Does it? The ACC sold those those rights to ESPN as part of the TV contract. The ACC doesn’t have a claim to them as long as the TV contract is in force.
LikeLike
The GOR doesn’t say, “Florida State is free to leave, as long as BC keeps receiving what they receive today.” No, the GOR is much more favorable to BC than that. I don’t know what you would have to offer BC to induce them to relinquish that advantage, but it must surely be a lot more than they receive today.
This is not just like when Maryland left, because there was no grant of rights then.
LikeLike
Here’s the early GOR from Andy Staples. Its scanned so I can’t copy text from it. Hopefully its not behind the paywall. Paragraph 1 states the rights are assigned to the conference to perform the contractual obligations of the ESPN contract whether they are a member or not. As long as EPSN is happy to be still in possession of (or example) FSU’s rights, the ACC bylaws are followed, and the TV contract is still in force I don’t see anything (or example) BC can do. Its a straight we are giving our rights to the ACC to fulfill our obligations to ESPN document (IANAL).
Click to access ACC-Grant-of-Rights-1.pdf
LikeLike
That Andy Staples article about the Grant of Rights is a really good primer on the issues involved. It very much tracks with how I see the GOR issues. I looked at the Big 12 GOR agreement back in 2013 and the issues that were in place then are the same ones that are in place now for any league with that type of agreement:
LikeLike
As long as EPSN is happy to be still in possession of (or example) FSU’s rights, the ACC bylaws are followed, and the TV contract is still in force I don’t see anything (or example) BC can do.
If it were just BC alone, you would be right. But most ACC schools would not get Big Ten or SEC invitations. The conference is going to act in their interest, not in the interest of schools who wish to leave.
To make it basic, the GOR says that the ACC owns Florida State’s media rights whether FSU is in the conference or not. But FSU doesn’t get paid if it is no longer a member. The GOR is ironclad unless the rump ACC schools get paid every dollar of FSU’s home game rights through 2036, and all the while the SEC still pays FSU enough to make it worth leaving.
LikeLike
To make it basic, the GOR says that the ACC owns Florida State’s media rights whether FSU is in the conference or not. But FSU doesn’t get paid if it is no longer a member. The GOR is ironclad unless the rump ACC schools get paid every dollar of FSU’s home game rights through 2036, and all the while the SEC still pays FSU enough to make it worth leaving.
I agree. As long as ESPN feels the contractual obligations with the ACC are being fulfilled (i.e. they do not exercise any composition clause to reopen the deal) then there isn’t a violation. Lets say, ESPN has determined that FSU and UNC are additive to the SEC and they accept invitations to the SEC following the ACC’s bylaws. ESPN tells the ACC that they are willing to pay the same amount ($17 x 14 or ~238 million) to the remaining 12 and as far as they are concerned the ACC is continuing to meet the obligations under their media rights contract. Therefore, the ESPN-ACC contract remains in force with no changes. Thus, ESPN still owns the rights to FSU and UNC. In this scenario (slightly different then my original), they’re still paying the ACC for FSU and UNC. They just happen to by paying the SEC too for FSU and UNC games.
Where is the legal “injury?” The ACC is getting the full value of the media rights contract and thanks to ESPN (who considers the obligations fulfilled) can’t claim a violation of the GOR. The “injury” to the remaining teams (i.e. BC not playing FSU anymore) is rectified (i.e. they get paid the fine for leaving) via the ACC bylaws. ESPN still owns the rights to FSU and UNC. Everyone is made whole.
LikeLike
Market forces are more powerful than any contract. That’s just a fact. If ESPN decides having those schools in the SEC is more beneficial to their long term strategy/bottom line than their deal with the ACC, it’s going to happen. I’m honestly amazed anyone believes that GOR is going to hold the ACC together until ’36. Consolidation is happening and it’s going to occur very rapidly once ND makes its move.
LikeLike
Agreed. Evidently you, Mike, and I are on the same wavelength on this issue.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting mathematical word problem.
In the booming TV sports market, are BC/Syracuse and Wake/Pitt football games (for example) going to be worth 17 million per year for the next decade plus…to justify getting FSU/Alabama and Clemson/Georgia games every year at 60 million?
ESPN might not bat at eyelash at a 24 team SEC…adding FSU, Miami, Clemson, GaTech, UVA, Duke, VaTech, UNC…but does the SEC WANT THAT?
And 6 leftover teams…who can they add to make a 10 or 12 team conference that has viable football until the 2036 deal ends?
I guess they could offer 17 million per year to Memphis and South Florida and SMU and East Carolina to fill out a roster…
LikeLike
Marc,
It makes no sense. ESPN isn’t party to the GOR, that’s the schools and the conference. And at least the original GOR said all parties must approve any changes.
ESPN can tear up the TV deal if the ACC agrees, or may need to reopen it if membership changes, but that’s a separate contract. And how would ESPN make more money by letting FSU move to the SEC and having to pay them a lot more as well as making it possible for other schools to leave the ACC? I doubt the legality of them saying schools can leave, but only to other conferences we own 100%.
LikeLike
We are cross-posting here, so I am not sure what you are replying to. ESPN does not do deals that lose money. They would have to come up with something where the sum of the moving parts is greater (for them) then what they have now.
If FSU and Clemson move in isolation, there is no way that can work. Every dollar they make would go back to the ACC, and those two schools are not going to play for free. ESPN would need to come up with a package deal where nobody loses money, including them.
I am not saying this will happen. No deal with this many moving parts could ever be described as probable or likely. But there are ways.
LikeLike
Wow! You’ve had a Scrooge-like change of heart concerning the strength of that GOR. Were you visited by the Ghosts of Contracts Past, Present and Future last night?
LikeLike
I have not changed my mind. I am suggesting as a thought experiment what it would take, and it’s pretty daunting. I always said that the GoR, like any contract, can be terminated at some price, but that price can be so high as to be impossible.
LikeLike
Marc,
I was referring to the FSU microsite claiming ESPN can tear up the GOR.
ESPN doesn’t intentionally do money losing deals all that often, but they do them (LHN). Sometimes a loss leader serves a bigger purpose. But no, they aren’t releasing the ACC schools to lose a lot of money.
And the smaller ACC schools aren’t releasing the valuable ones from the GOPR any time soon either.
LikeLike
Grant of rights simply addresses a contract issue. Network would buy rights to conference X for 10 years. Composition would change deal has to be renegotiated.
With GOR Conference X holds media rights not for the membership as it fluxes but for the signing membership for the term.
School A can leave the next day if they so desire, they just leave behind their media rights until the grant expires.
Now maybe Conference Z is unwilling or contractually blocked from adding school A without their media rights but in theory Conference Z can still add A while their home broadcasts remain the property of Conference X
LikeLike
@Arkstfan: Yes, that has been the GOR math from the beginning. It’s simply that 13 years worth of FSU and Clemson home games is too much to give up: they are a valuable prize, but not as much as that. Otherwise, FSU and Clemson could leave the ACC tomorrow.
LikeLike
@Marc I think we say the math doesn’t work when Big XII has sold rights to Fox and ESPN and moving to an ESPN conference. I suspect same is true when leaving those rights to ESPN and moving to a Fox conference.
The hell if I know is moving ESPN to ESPN.
Clemson and Florida State playing an SEC schedule is worth more than playing an ACC schedule.
ACC gets paid as if they remain. The SEC gets the difference between that base value and the increase. The grand unknown is whether that increase above base value of the schools and increase to SEC for their league road games is enough to be worthwhile to SEC (I suspect not) or whether that amount plus the peace of mind of having them now rather than courting them 10 years from now is worthwhile.
That latter scenario is big picture question I don’t believe any of us can answer.
LikeLike
ESPN did not intend to lose money on the LHN. They thought carriage would be easy because they thought they could carry Texas HS football, but the NCAA stepped in and stopped that. And they finally did start making a little money on it a few years ago.
LikeLike
“Every dollar they make would go back to the ACC . . . .”
But only to the extent of the dollars they would have earned by fulfilling the ESPN TV agreement, not the value of their SEC earnings. That’s a penalty. Again, the purpose of the GOR was to secure the value of ESPN’s TV rights, so the GOR is only that valuable. The GOR is not intended to provide a windfall to the rump ACC.
As for “security” for the rump ACC as a “purpose” of the GOR, that “security” is the value of the contract they have with ESPN. So when ESPN decides it makes sense to scuttle the ACC, that will happen with a negotiated settlement with the rump ACC.
Finally, I agree that in this scenario, departing ACC teams will only go to the SEC and not the B1G (Fox).
LikeLike
The really terrible decision wasn’t the GOR (at least not for the majority of the ACC who will not be able to find a home in the B1G or SEC); the worst decision was actually the ACC’s 2011 contract with ESPN.
In a decision that I’m sure had nothing to do with the fact the ACC’s commissioner’s son was the head of ACC programming at the network, the ACC demanded that any TV partner sign a sub licensing dealing with Raycom Sports. Fox said no, and that left ESPN to bid against itself.
The ACC settled for a deal that paid like $155 million a year for 12 years.
For comparison, the next year the PAC (who did not demand that network sign a sub licensing deal with a local sports network) was able to $205 million a year for half as much content despite the fact the ACC got better football and basketball ratings.
Every since then, the ACC has been trying to dig itself out of the hole they put themselves in with that poor negotiation. The problem is every time the ACC tries to do something to rework that deal (adding ‘Cuse/Pitt. adding ND, the ACC Network) ESPN doesn’t give them much new money and (even worse) requires the ACC to tack on more years to the end of the deal.
By the time ACC’s deal finally expires (2036) the ACC will have gone 25 years without their TV rights going to market. That’s why they are stuck in such bad deal.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/34201980/would-notre-dame-actually-consider-relinquishing-historic-independent-status
ESPN+ article on would Notre Dame actually give up independence. Nothing new really or earth-shattering, just confirms that the Irish, if they were to join a football conference must join the ACC. However, if they withdrew all their other sports from the ACC, then the school would no longer be married to the league.
LikeLike
Andy Staples and Nicole Auerbach cover realignment and discuss SwimSwam.
LikeLike
Big Ten’s media rights are all transferred to BTN and then sold by BTN (which is 61% owned by FOX, so FOX executives are a part of the negotiation team on behalf of the Big Ten).
There is just no way that the Big Ten was going to approve a playoff extension where its main media rights holder would be locked out from the playoff.
That was probably most of the reason why the Big Ten didn’t agree to the CFP expansion.
There’s other things about Texas/OU to the SEC that caused upheaval last year, but the #1 reason in my mind was FOX executives telling the Big Ten that they viewed it as damaging to the Big Ten’s media rights if FOX wouldn’t be able to bid on playoff games.
For FOX and the Big Ten, FOX being able to package/advertise playoff games and become a major home for those on a national basis enhances the value of the Big Ten package too.
LikeLike
B1G: “Ruh-Roh!”
ESPN: “…And I would have gotten away with it to, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids!”
LikeLike
Nothing forced the colleges to extend the 12 year CFP deal. Expanding under the current deal was a win-win deal. The stubborn 3 just gave away money.
LikeLike
If there had been some kind of open bidding for the TV rights, I think the Big Ten would have agreed to the extension (regardless of the competitive consequences or other issues or no AQs or whatever).
Granting ESPN a 12 year monopoly on the postseason was never going to be in the cards without some kind of open bidding.
LikeLike
Not for everyone, it wasn’t. That’s why 3 conferences said no. It was a great deal for ESPN.
LikeLike
I take it you believe the conferences’ stated reasons were not the real ones. No one said, “In the end, we voted no because it was a better deal for ESPN than it was for us.”
LikeLike
I believe they had multiple reasons, including the ones they stated. The stated ones sounded better than talking about business and Fox/ESPN battles.
LikeLike
There’s no way Kevin Warren was going to go up there and say that they were against ESPN being granted 12 years of a 12 team playoff without a competitive bidding process.
But I’m almost certain that was the main reason the Big Ten was against it.
FOX probably told the Big Ten that it wanted to participate in the postseason and needed to be able to package those games to promote cfb (including Big Ten) on its channels.
It’s crazy to position the 12 team playoff as a win-win for everyone when there was no open bidding for the TV rights.
Maybe ESPN bids a crazy number regardless to block out FOX.
But at least let it get to an open bidding process.
LikeLike
The ACC thought that repeatedly extending their deal with ESPN in exchange for a bit more money in the short run was a win-win. Look how that worked out for them.
LikeLike
Joel Klatt proposed that the B10 and SEC should schedule a B10/SEC showdown in CFB every year, using the conference finishes from the previous season (1 vs 1, …, 16 vs 16). It won’t happen for multiple reasons, but maybe a more limited series of kickoff classics (2-3 per year?) could work.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-coach-rankings-2022-dabo-swinney-remains-on-top-mario-cristobal-makes-strong-debut-in-new-conference/
ND wants to let “the landscape settle” before making any decisions. Put simply, I think they want to see 3 things:
1. How much the B10 gets paid
2. What the new CFP plan look like
3. How much NBC offers them to renew
A year from now they can make a much more informed decision, and they know the B10 will wait for them.
LikeLike
Sure…but how does the Big Ten “wait” for them? The TV deal is being signed this summer/fall.
They’ll know #1 essentially as the Big Ten finishes out this expansion phase. (i.e. “We’re adding UW/UO/Stanford and with you, we’re going to make 110 mill. per year per school.”)
They know they’ll be safe with #2 because the Big Ten isn’t signing on for a playoff that doesn’t benefit them (including ND) financially.
#3. It doesn’t matter. NBC won’t offer them 15 million per home game (for the 7 home games that ND will get).
LikeLike
The B10 waits for them by doing nothing else. They won’t add anyone else before ND (barring an ACC collapse).
Yes, the deal may be announced at or near media days in late July. That sets the bar. Then ND can start asking NBC what sort of number they have in mind for a renewal. Finally they need to know the CFP plan because access to the CFP is the other issue they worry about, and their CFP payout is relevant to their math. Once they’ve got a better idea of the future, then they can make an informed decision.
LikeLike
Vegas odds on B10 and SEC expansion candidates in 2022. UC is actually #5 for the B10 – get some of that action.
Of more interest, UO is +150 (same as ND) while Cal and Stanford are +2000. Bovada certainly doesn’t believe in the Bay Area market.
LikeLike
Following UMD’s departure, the GoR is what stabilized the ACC from further departures. Its clear, unequivocal language has kept the ACC 100% defection-free ever since, unlike every other conference but the SEC and B1G.
Some have continued to deride John Swofford and/or the ACC presidents, but these are hardly stupid people. Looking from the perspective of the ACC itself, that business decision is what has kept the ACC alive even now, with a tv network to boot. So in a sense, the GoR is doing exactly as intended.
Further, it’s what ESPN dictated before assuming the costs/risks of establishing the ACC Networks. Without it, the ACC would have fractured a long time ago; most of the schools would be worse for it today.
Would at least 2 schools like to get out? Yes. But it is spectacular nonsense to think ESPN can tear up a legally binding agreement to which it is not even a party.
LikeLike
And just to be clear, costs of leaving the ACC, assuming 2 years’ notice:
1) $100M+ exit fee (3x annual ACC operations budget)
2) $432M minimum (12 years at $36M/year in ACC Network revenue based on the last payout, which is projected to increase)
3) Any tv revenue from any new conference
Note: ND reportedly would have to pay $150M
In the face of over $500M costs, some sort of 5-, 7-, of 10-year phase-in (like UMD got) with the B1G isn’t going to be a very good deal for any ACC school for a long, long time.
So ACC schools will stay put, some unhappily. Which incentives ND to say put. Which in turn keeps B1G and SEC where they are until the 2030s.
LikeLike
#3 isn’t necessarily true. I understand that your rights stay behind, but if a new conference chooses to give you money anyway (without showing your games) that’s their business. They could choose to keep you whole if they want.
LikeLike
And couldn’t they pay you for road OOC games? Those rights never belonged to the original TV deal anyway.
LikeLike
You’re right on the road games – so that’s something.
From Paragraph 1 of the GoR: Each school “irrevocably and exclusively” grants the league those television rights to its home games “regardless of whether such Member Institution remains a member of the Conference during the entirety of the Term.”
Am not a lawyer, but understand that the GoR language has held up when used & challenged in other business sectors. Which probably helps to explain why no one has been rushing to the courthouse to date.
LikeLike
With all that said, schools have to assume the worst and plan for whatever might come.
There have been many, many reports in the past days that UVA/UNC – co-partners in “The Oldest Rivalry in the South” – are negotiating with both the SEC and the B1G in case the GoR falls.
(But to Marc and FTT comments, above, only 1 in 25 rumors might have some truth LOL)
LikeLike
Would not surprise me if UNC, UVA presidents reach out to colleagues in the Big Ten and SEC to touch base.
But no way those 2 are going to move anytime before either 1) 2032-2033 when they’ll be a couple years away from end of GOR or 2) sooner if Clemson/FSU find a loophole to break the GOR.
Either way, UNC and UVA would be the top 2 targets for Big Ten. SEC too presumably.
Big Ten under Delaney made a lot of decision to aim for UNC/UVA eventually: 1) taking Maryland as a natural bridge/rival, 2) adding men/womens lacrosse (with JHU).
Obviously secondary sports won’t matter here, but I’d be a bit surprised if UVA at least isn’t more receptive to Big Ten than SEC.
As far as UNC goes, we’d try to sell a trio of UNC/UVA/Duke.
LikeLike
Has BYU signed a GOR with the Big12?
Or could they just come over to the Pac12?
LikeLike
Dave, the guys on this forum continue to believe that BYU has religious cooties. It is by far the best possible addition to hold the Pac-12 together.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/05/12/pac-10-expansion-revisiting-the-brigham-young-issue/
No, we believe that Stanford and Cal have no interest in sharing a conference with BYU for academic/research/religious reasons, among other reasons. It’s been true for decades.
LikeLike
“No, we believe that Stanford and Cal have no interest in sharing a conference with BYU for academic/research/religious reasons, among other reasons.”
Did you check the date of that article? That was before USC and UCLA bolted.
LikeLike
Yes, that was intentional. Cal and Stanford have felt this way about BYU for a very long time. Their opinions aren’t changing because USC and UCLA left. This isn’t about money to them, it’s fundamental principle.
LikeLike
If you look at the issue solely in terms of football and TV, sure. But the academics at Cal and Stanford will ask if they are peer organizations.
ARWU ranks Stanford as the #2 university in the world. Cal is #5. BYU is ranked in the range of 401-500.
In terms of research, Stanford is #10 in research dollars within the US. Cal is #30. BYU is #225.
Then there is the religious side of the equation.
I do not believe Stanford and Cal would consider BYU to be a peer university.
LikeLike
If Stanford and Cal want peer universities in the Pac-12, here is a list of all the other West Coast colleges ranked within the top 100 by the Wall Street Journal. Which ones do you want playing football in the Pac-12?
7 California Institute of Technology
25 Pomona College
34 Claremont McKenna College
40 University of California, Davis
43 University of California, San Diego
74 Santa Clara University
76 University of California, Santa Barbara
87 University of California, Irvine
90 Loyola Marymount University
95 Occidental College
96 University of the Pacific
LikeLike
Were I running the Pac, I’d feel there are no peer universities with a similar athletic department remaining on the coast, it is true. If I wished to expand, I’d need to look east. My preference would be to try to keep my conference, but develop an alliance with the ACC or Big 12.
LikeLike
I know with absolute certainty that multiple Sun Belt schools in talking with Liberty focused on the Liberty code of student conduct and policy of not granting tenure to any faculty other than the law school faculty, which is a condition of ABA accreditation.
These are Bible Belt public colleges who were concerned about faculty and student backlash if they added Liberty.
I doubt Bay Area and Seattle would be fans of BYU
LikeLike
Scott,
I expect the P12 will listen to the advisors and TV execs on expansion. If there’s someone who adds value, they’ll consider them. But I don’t think there’s anyone that does. Much like the B12 expanded not to make more money but to increase in numbers (8 is too small), the P12 would be looking to just beef up which makes little sense to me. They are better off at 10 schools, then backfilling if the B10 snags anyone else. And if they do lose more schools to the B10, they might also lose the rest (except OrSU and WSU) to the B12 anyway. I don’t see any new additions changing that.
I think the B12 and P12 will end up with similar values and thus not raid each other either way. I doubt the financial advantage of a move is worth the hassles and exit fees. Stick with the rivals your fans know and wait to see how the new CFP turns out. Then worry about it all again in 12 years when the ACC GOR is nearing an end.
LikeLike
Brian – I agree with most of your thoughts but if I am a four corners school I think I would rather align with the Big 12 for Texas recruiting purposes. I think it will be more difficult to recruit California going forward.
On a side note, does anyone have high school football participation numbers/trends in California? Seems like participation has stabilized a bit in the Midwest. We know there has been a decline in many parts of the country.
LikeLike
With USC and UCLA now in the Big Ten, there are only two other schools that hit every mark. Peers in academics and commitment to research, great football with tremendous fan base, huge, new media market, home to a huge recruiting area, expanding Big Ten footprint to a growing area.
Those schools are Texas and Florida. There is no harm in reaching out to them at this stage, as I think the Big Ten is a superior home in may ways, though I realize it would be very doubtful that they would jump ship from the SEC. .
Every other candidate is appealing in several ways, but falls a bit short in one or two categories. The best remaining are Washington, Stanford, UNC, Cal, Colorado, Notre Dame, Virginia, Duke, Arizona, Utah, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, Duke, Georgia Tech and Oregon.
What you value dictates which of those schools you pursue. Personally, I’d probably value them in about that order. I think the only ones that the Big Ten will take are Notre Dame and UNC. But they might be inclined to take Virginia, Stanford, and Washington if the stars aligned..
LikeLike
Kevin,
The numbers continued to drop (pre-COVID), but it seems to be leveling out a bit. The same trend is true nationally.
With USC and UCLA in the B10, I think CA recruiting might be improved. Now these schools will play more games in the region than the two big brands. TX recruiting will be a nightmare with the SEC teams taking all the top players, plus UH just got a boost by upgrading to P5 level. Distance helps keep more of the CA players out west.
LikeLike
Well, if we’re dreaming, the schools the B10 would absolutely take are ND, Texas, UF, and UGa.
The SEC schools are pretty low probability.
IMO, forming an academic peer to the Ivy League would be more rewarding for the B10 in the long run.
LikeLike
https://www.thegazette.com/iowa-football/big-ten-not-seeking-new-members-iowa-ad-gary-barta-says/
Gary Barta gave a press conference.
* He would “probably eventually” support adding ND, but he doesn’t see that decision happening this year
* He also expects no other expansion decisions by the B10 this year
* He expects CFP expansion soon
* He thinks divisions will likely go away in 2024 when USC and UCLA join (so no need for new
schedules for 2022 and 2023)
An option he didn’t mention was keeping the current divisions for scheduling for now, but putting the top 2 into the CCG anyway. That would be the easiest way to do it.
LikeLike
He’d “probably eventually” support adding ND.
That’s pretty rich. As if anyone would hesitate for even one second to add ND to their conference
LikeLike
I’ll be the outlier here, but I’d hesitate.
Notre Dame has a proud football history, and it has built a great national brand with an enormous following. I see why people like the football program, and I thoroughly enjoyed Rudy. And I’d be interested if Notre Dame played my alma mater. Its football interest is also worth big money to the Big Ten, so one can see the appeal.
But if you’re talking about Notre Dame joining the Big Ten, you have to look at Notre Dame dispassionately. And then you’d see it’s a different sort of place to the other schools in the Big Ten. With under 9,000 undergraduates, Notre Dame is comparatively tiny to Big Ten schools. That’s less than half the size of Northwestern, and compare to nearby Purdue, with 42,000, and Indiana with 49,000.
And it would be the only religious school in the Big Ten, which is a very different academic culture to large, secular universities. Also unlike large public universities, it is not diverse ethnically or financially. They appeal to students across the US, and thus, they like to consider themselves diverse. But the student population is, by and large, white, well-off and Catholic.
Notre Dame is THE dream school for many Catholics, and being so small, it can afford to be quite selective, particularly when the US Catholic population it appeals to numbers 70 million. This makes it rank high by metrics using acceptance rate (like US News). Even with the high reputation among Catholics and Notre Dame’s tiny student body, making it artificially challenging to get into, I’d point out that it’s harder to get into the other private universities we discuss here, Northwestern, Duke or Stanford. Even USC is harder to get into.
Notre Dame considers itself an academic peer of Stanford or Northwestern or Duke, but compare how they rate by ARWU. Those schools rank #2, 32 and 34 in the world. Notre Dame is ranked in the 301-400 range. If we just look at the US, it’s in the 90-110 range, the same range as Oregon, Washington State, Central Florida. Being private,
We talk about how the Big Ten is comprised of major research universities. Several do over a billion dollars of research per year, and every school save Nebraska does over a half billion per year. Notre Dame is not AAU. It is 127th in research dollars, well behind every Big Ten school. It has just 1/3 of Indiana’s research budget and a third less than laggard Nebraska’s, the lowest in the Big Ten, which was kicked out of the AAU. As a comparison of similar schools in research, Notre Dame resides behind New Mexico, Central Florida, and Clemson. But that’s mostly an identity issue for Big Ten presidents. I could argue that #127 isn’t bad for a tiny religious school. But it’s just not what the Big Ten schools or Pac Ten schools are.
The other thing is that Notre Dame, a bit like Texas, also comes with a superiority complex that I think will prove hard to live with. Personally, I’d much prefer Washington, Cal, Stanford, or UNC.
LikeLike
Everything you say is true, and yet it doesn’t matter to the decision. The ND football brand is too valuable for anyone to turn down, especially if the alternative is that your competition gets them.
NE didn’t really belong academically, but the B10 took them for their brand and being similar enough. USC doesn’t really belong culturally, but the B10 took them for their brand, market, and being similar enough. ND is a geographical fit, an existing rival to several members, and literally worth millions per year to every B10 school.
ND’s most common opponents in football include:
1. Navy
2. USC
3. PU
4. MSU
5. Pitt
6. Army
7. NW
8. MI
…
14. IN
15. IA
…
18. PSU
19. WI
20. NE
…
24. IL
LikeLike
My wife says what I say doesn’t matter too. In fact, she had it written into her vows.
You’re right though. I’m not making the decisions, and the Big Ten would take ND for the cash (primarily), the brand that has great appeal to the largest religious group in the country, which brings viewers, and the convenient location.
I lived in South Bend once upon a time. The town is a pleasant, if a little underwhelming. Notre Dame wouldn’t be my preferred choice, but I understand the appeal and I have nothing in particular against them. I pull for them if they play against someone in the SEC, for instance. If they don’t come to the Big Ten, that’s fine by me. If they do, I’ll console myself if it means money for my alma mater.
LikeLike
It’s interesting when you lay out Notre Dame’s most common opponents. Despite Notre Dame’s protests that they don’t want to play in a conference, particularly the Big Ten, that nearly all of Notre Dame’s most common opponents are in the Big Ten–Purdue, Michigan State, Northwestern, Michigan, Iowa, Penn Sate, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Illinois. USC is now in the Big Ten. Even Pitt is in the footprint. .
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s undergrad enrollment is slightly larger than Northwestern’s undergrad enrollment. What you say about research is true. It is not a research-heavy university and, importantly, for AAU purposes, lacks a medical school. But from an undergraduate “prestige” perspective, ND would match Northwestern at the top of the B1G.
LikeLike
Prestige is subjective. For many, expensive privates are highly valued simply because they are expensive and private. And certainly to many a Catholic, maybe most Catholics, there is no finer school. And many non-Catholics are swayed by the football brand, I’m sure.
If you’re not Catholic, or a fan of Rudy, maybe, I’m not sure the evidence would suggest that it’s considered in the same category as the other privates we discuss here.
US News
Stanford #3
Duke #23
Northwestern #24
Notre Dame #284. Below Oregon, Colorado State and Kansas.
QS
Stanford #3
Northwestern #30
Duke #52
Notre Dame #222
WSJ/Times
Stanford #4
Duke #23
Northwestern #24
Notre Dame #183
ARWU
Stanford #2
Duke #32
Northwestern #34
Notre Dame grouped in the 301-400 range with Iowa State, Central Florida, Washington State and BYU
CWUR
Stanford #2
Northwestern #17
Duke #20
Notre Dame #170. Just below Iowa State.
In fact, Notre Dame places well below the majority of the Big Ten publics on these lists, too, which I suspect you may not like to hear. To be sure, one of the more charming qualities of Notre Dame alums is their stories of the superior characteristics of their school.
So maybe you’re an alum and there is a ranking system you prefer that ranks Notre Dame as among the best of the best. I’d be interested to see it, actually.
From my perspective, though, without football, I suspect Notre Dame wouldn’t be considered much different than Bucknell or Brandeis or Colgate or whatever. (I’ll leave that discussion to those who value small, private school education.)
Anyway, we’ll each have to define whether Notre Dame is prestigious. For me, as a non-religious person, I would never have considered it any more than I’d have considered BYU or Liberty or whatever. Particularly so for the sciences.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is an extremely selective school with tremendous alumni engagement. The school has an incredible network for employment opportunities similar to the ivies. They are not a research institution and have a bigger focus on professional studies such as business or law. Without football I’d imagine they are similar to DePaul, Marquette or Villanova.
LikeLike
Scott, I’m not sure where you got your info but the current WSJ/Times ranking has Notre Dame # 28 in the US, not # 183.
LikeLike
First, each of the rankings, including the WSJ /Times I provided, are world rankings, where Notre Dame is, in fact, ranked 183. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/search?search=notre%20dame.
The WSJ rank you reference is, as you mentioned, US only, and does have Notre Dame ranked #28 within the US.
It’s worth mentioning that the WSJ uses an interesting group of metrics. 20% a rather subjective student survey, something suggested by Malcolm Gladwell.
In comparison, the diversity of courses (typical of larger schools)is weighted 3%, diversity in people (typical in state schools) is just 2%.
Weighted heavily is class size and financial resources (they state that a large endowment allows the school to better weather things like Covid).
Not uncommon with an east-coast perspective, or the WSJ’s perspective for that matter, the preferred emphasis tends to boost small, private, wealthy schools. The top 23 on that list are all private schools, and in the top 50 are schools like Amherst, Williams, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Carleton, Haverford, and Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wesleyan, and Smith.
LikeLike
Scott,
Nobody really cares about world rankings when discussing the prestige of ND in the US. After the top handful, most Americans haven’t even heard of most of those international schools and have no way to evaluate the accuracy of any rankings of them.
US rankings are more than sufficient for seeking ND’s relative prestige (Oxford is not a B10 expansion option).
So USNWR may list ND as #284 globally, but they are #19 in the national rankings – way above #99 Oregon, #148 Colorado State, and #122 Kansas. How those 3 can be higher globally but lower nationally I leave as an open question. But since “reputation” plays such a significant role in national USNWR rankings, I’d say it’s relevant here.
LikeLike
USNWR uses “alumni giving” as a metric with the rationale that graduates who feel their education was valuable will donate to the school accordingly. Of course with Notre Dame, we all know that the alumni donate generously to the school because they’re all jacked up about the football team.
LikeLike
I think I read the same article on a different site.
What stood out to me is that the B10 intends to fly charter even for non-revenue sports (at least to and from the West Coast). I can see how that can work, though: Just schedule a bunch of different non-revenue sports teams to fly out to LA for 2 matches vs both LA schools on the same long weekend.
Same for the LA schools. They could conceivably even take week+ long road trips. That probably would require taking a bunch of online classes, but many/most athletes take those these days anyway.
LikeLike
Yes, it is to key to remember the recent changes in college education technology. Now even “regular” classes will often be easy for athletes to get recorded lectures, Zoom in for office hours if they have questions, etc. Other than missing physical labs, a weeklong road trip wouldn’t be all that difficult. Students regularly missed 2 weeks for COVID.
LikeLike
So, add Stanford, UC Berkeley, Washington, and Oregon, to make life easier for USC an UCLA (ie go to 20 now), and wait 12 to 13 years for a decision on ND + others. This is more or less what happened between PSU and Nebraska.
ND may never come. So plan as if they won’t ever be in the B1G.
All these realignments are based solely on money. Tradition, history, culture, rivalries count for nothing. That is a recipe to destroy the fan base, and, eventually, the financial base.
Did you watch the USFL this spring? Why not? The teams were better than almost any college team, including Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, and tOSU. Do you really think anyone will watch the purely money driven super conferences? Do you really think tOSU/Meat Chicken matters anymore?
LikeLike
That’s why you take schools with giant alumni bases.
Eventually that’s your minimum base, alumni+families.
It’s partially why the Big Ten and SEC are so strong.
Most of the Big Ten is universities with 40k+ students and 400k+ living alumni.
That’s like 13 of 16, only Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern don’t fit that size. Iowa/Nebraska helped by not having pro teams in their states so can count on t-shirt fans.
LikeLike
Bob,
If USC and UCLA wanted western company, they should’ve asked then. Instead, they seem to have claimed they’d rather not have company. Going to 20 costs money and dilutes the existing rivalries by playing less often. Where’s the upside? Assuming ND doesn’t come, staying at 16 is the better option. That leaves more flexibility for future moves.
They aren’t solely on money, just mostly. ND has turned down money. The B10 has ignored potential options due to academics or geography. Culture has been shown to matter several times. But I agree this money-driven consolidation will continue hurting the sport. Unfortunately, the schools are addicted to revenue streams now so it’s unstoppable.
I didn’t watch, but the USFL’s TV ratings are on par with mediocre CFB games. That’s not too bad for a new league playing in spring. The numbers will likely grow as people get used to spring football.
Millions will watch 2 superconferences. All those teams have large fan bases, plus many others are neutral fans. And don’t forget all the gamblers. Big CFB games still draw huge ratings.
LikeLike
20 makes zero sense if you think there is any chance to get Notre Dame in the future.
You figure out where you want to finish. If its 18 with ND, you stay at 16. If its 20, you pick the two best Pac schools and sit at 18. You don’t want to do an expansion after the contract is signed unless the expansion is Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I agree, no chance the Big Ten goes to 20 without ND or UNC involved.
Just an extremely low chance in my mind. If we go to 18 with something like Washington/Oregon (or Cal/Stanford – though I really don’t see how that pays for itself), that might make sense as a logical stopping point before next major round.
But more likely things settle in and then get resolved in 2033 when we find out what happens with the ACC.
LikeLike
SwimSwam now floating the theory that ESPN might be trying to void deal with their deal with the ACC because they think the benefit to the SEC (which ESPN also owns TV rights to) would outweigh the damage to their loss of an ultra-network friendly deal with the ACC.
I don’t buy it.
https://swimswam.com/what-is-the-acc-grant-of-rights-and-why-does-it-matter/
LikeLike
SwimSwam got called by virtually everyone for a completely unsubstantiated and probable BS report.
Hearing from a random source (probably swimming related) at Clemson/FSU that they’re thinking about going to the SEC doesn’t equate to what they tried to report.
And now they’re doing CYA by talking about GOR, another subject that’s probably out of their lane.
They got a million clicks though, so I guess it was worth it.
LikeLike
We might be in for a decade of stability until we get closer to the ACC GOR ending (say 2032-2033).
ND and UNC feel like the 2 biggest “prizes” left on the board. Those 2 are the ones that really move the needle as must haves for the Big Ten and/or SEC.
Of course, the playoff situation can impact this as well. I expect ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 to push hard for AQs now since they’re going to be facing weaker schedules and don’t want to be left aside as afterthoughts.
LikeLike
The 2 aren’t really comparable. ND is really the only target left that can justify themselves solely by TV revenues.
UNC (and Duke, UVa, Stanford, Cal, maybe GTech and UW) only make sense if the B10 is trying to build a league to rival the Ivy League academically.
LikeLike
UNC is a territorial play. Controls a fast growing state of 10+ million and the only one (ignoring NY) that isn’t controlled by the Big Ten or SEC.
Virginia is the next largest state not controlled by either.
Financially, UNC + 1-2 might be a detriment, but not if they’re coming with ND or just before a new contract is signed and they have a buy in period.
I expect the next TV deal to end around 2034-2035, i.e. just before the ACC comes up to bat.
LikeLike
Really, REALLY dumb thought here:
GoR says the conference holds the rights to “home” games of signatories through the life of the contract. Is a potential out not having any “home games” until the contract is over? Does the GoR define what constitutes a home game?
Now I don’t mean Clemson plays 15 yeas of nothing but actual away games (at conference foes stadiums) if they bolted for the SEC. The loss of home gate and the hit to the local economy for that long would be terrible. But could they play at the closest “neutral” site and have it classified legally as “not home”? For instance: does Greenville have a large facility they could use?
LikeLike
Have to play five countable home games or lose FBS status
LikeLike
Damn. Figured that was too easy.
Then again, those are NCAA rules and everyone and their brother are basically saying that the B1G and the SEC are eventually going to tell the NCAA to pound sand re:football. If they completely separate from NCAA regs then the away game hairbrained idea is sorta back in play.
LikeLike
Maybe but it was a power league proposal.
I don’t think Clemson playing games at Charlotte Panthers stadium is going to pass muster as not home games. Hard to argue with a straight face Clemson wouldn’t be home team in half their league games and had agreed to offer from Kennesaw State to play in Jacksonville with Kennesaw promising the “visitors” all revenue after first $400,000.
It’d be seen as a fraud
LikeLike
Closest city with a big football stadium is probably Charlotte. FSU and Clemson (and UNC+UVa+maybe Duke) become barnstorming teams like ND a century ago?
Probably not realistically feasible but a neat idea.
LikeLike
I agree with Arkstfan that it would likely be seen as fraud, even if NCAA rules did not require five home games. Besides that, not playing in the home stadium for 10+ years would be a bridge too far with the fans and the community.
LikeLike
Richard,
I agree ND and UNC aren’t comparable, and only ND justifies addition purely by TV ratings. But I disagree that the mid-Atlantic expansion cannot make financial sense. Pulling from your own arguments for Cal and Stanford, UNC and UVA provide an academic bump and access to out of state students. They also provide BTN subscribers and TV viewers. On top of that, there is the UNC hoops brand (and NCAA tourney shares), and natural rivalries with UMD. I think that package makes sense.
LikeLike
Oh sure, UNC+UVa+Duke(+ maybe GTech) make sense if you’re also trying to build a league to rival the Ivy League academically along with other reasons. Same with Stanford+Cal. But they don’t make sense from a purely maximizing tier 1/2 rights value perspective. Only ND (and a few SEC schools) do.
LikeLike
Introducing…
The ACC-ND-PAC (ANP) Network
While we wait for the financial data next week on the feasibility of an ACC-PAC Network, here’s a thought:
Ahead of ND’s contract renewal discussions with NBC, the ACC/ESPN should make a full-out pitch for ND to instead sign early with ESPN using the ACC Network platform – along with the PAC.
ND, ACC, PAC each to maintain their current independence from each other; all to use the carriage provided nationwide by a rebranded ANP Network. ACC to broadcast in the East, PAC in the West, with ND getting priority for all its games home & away. (What ACC/PAC discussing now, but adding ND to the mix.)
To add content & value, the ACC plays more games with PAC, and the two along with ND stage a championship game at rotating sites (Vegas, ND, Charlotte, other locations possible).
Everybody wins. (But no one dares to call it an Alliance LOL.) I know – “It’s so crazy it just might work!”
LikeLike
Reboot a defunct grocery chain (A & P) and this conference has instant sponsorship. USC missed it’s shot at a ND- like independent existence and peripheral relationship with a conference during the PAC breakup of the late 50s early 60s.
LikeLike
Seems like the most likely outcome for the short term is what we have at the moment. ND stays indy, nobody tests the ACC GOR, and the snobby Pac10 tries to ride it out, but with weak GOR/exit fees. (?Maybe ESPN bids high enough to keep them together for now and reduce instability across P5, and guarantee sufficient late night and other inventory. I’d guess ESPN prefers the P10 to B12? Despite the hip message board hot take that cable is dead and markets no longer matter, those that seem most connected, like Thamel, Staples, former ESPN head John Skipper, etc. seem to think that getting in-market rates is still significant for conferences with a channel.)
Second most likely is probably is the same except ESPN’s ACC decides to raid the top of the Pac. Get the best brands, 4+ new high population states with in-market rates for the ACCNet, late night inventory, and academic compatibility. Wash/Oregon/Stan and probably 1 of Colorado/Utah/ASU (or maybe all 3.) B12 gets 4-6 of the leftovers. But GOR issues could make this a non-starter.
Third most likely is the B12 convincing some Pac schools to cross over. Potentially more money, but perhaps a big lure of a weaker GOR/exit fees? B12’s survival is greatly enhanced by the Pac disappearing. Increases odds of a guaranteed slot in whatever the next playoff proposal is, and the chances of not being left behind if the SEC and B1G break away in football. In the end I don’t think those 2 are able to break away in football just by themselves, a 3rd or 4th conference will be included.
It’s hard to see why ND would have to commit to a conference right now. Too many unknowns with their next contract. So probably status quo for awhile.
Does FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA take on the ACC GOR before ND moves, or could they end up settling for now with some incremental changes like uneven revenue sharing or some kind of scheduling or other gimmick that gives ESPN the cover for some kind of revenue increase? Better odds of early escape for them if they go to ESPN’s SEC than Fox’s B1G. So might actually be the next realignment move, but maybe the 4th most likely in the short term (for the next year or so.)
LikeLike
I can’t rate the scenarios in probability order. But I agree the most likely ones have ND remaining independent for a while, the ACC surviving intact into the 2030s, and the Big Ten/SEC staying at 16 teams until then.
While I can see ways the ACC GOR could be pierced, none of them strike me as especially likely. The breakage costs seem too high for any party (or set of parties) to bear, much as they would like to.
It’s hard to see why ND would have to commit to a conference right now. Too many unknowns with their next contract. So probably status quo for awhile.
Yes, exactly. Since ND can join the Big Ten any day it wants, there is no reason to rush into it until they have better information.
LikeLike
Re your #2, it’s too bad A & P* is no longer a major supermarket chain….instant sponsorship opportunity.
*yes, it stood for Atlantic and Pacific
LikeLike
Big problem with unequal revenue sharing. Who decides who gets what? Clemson would say that football drives the bus and we are the primo game in town. FSU could respond that with our history and location it is just a matter of time before we are number 1 again.
NC could respond that we are the one school that is wanted by both the SEC and B1G, so we are more valuable. Someone would ask why UVA gets anything extra.
LikeLike
When the Big 12 had unequal revenue sharing, half of the TV revenue was set aside. That was then divided among the members who had more TV appearances for football and men’s basketball. I think bowl appearances and NCAA tournament appearances might have figured in that formula as well.
LikeLike
The P12 also figured out a formula. It’s not that difficult.
The real question would be how unequal they would allow the revenue to be. For ease of numbers, say the average is $30M. Will WF and BC agree to only $20M? $15M?
And more importantly, how much help is it if Clemson and FSU get $35M or even $40M if the B10 and SEC are getting $80-100M? Does it reduce their desire to leave the ACC by any measurable amount? I don’t see how unequal revenue in the ACC can solve their problem. It would only cause more hurt feelings. Accept that only a GOR extension can preserve the conference in its current form, and that it will take some structural change in the industry to make that possible, and ride it out with equal revenue until 2036. Many of the remaining ACC members may be happier after a split, as they’ll be with more similar schools (but getting a lot less money).
LikeLike
Yeah, less money would not make them happier. Ask Rice about that fun experience.
LikeLike
The less money is coming anyway. The happier is from not having to deal with the FSUs, Clemsons, etc. Have a nice BB/lax-focused conference of like minded schools and don’t have $200M budgets or try to win the CFP.
LikeLike
For a Texas-Kansas game both teams would receive the same from the 50% of TV money based on appearance. Over the season, Kansas might have 2 or 3 appearances while Texas 10 or 11, so the unequal totals.
The NCAA tournament money was split based on tournament games, so Kansas made out on this. I do not know what % was to the playing team vs. split evenly across the conference.
LikeLike
I know at least one year Kansas had the biggest distribution. Oklahoma and Texas were always near the top. Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas St.., Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. were near the bottom.
LikeLike
Big problem with unequal revenue sharing. Who decides who gets what?
It’s a matter of how much the low-value schools have to give up, so that the high-value schools will have incentive to stay. The ACC has no reason to even talk about this, assuming their grant of rights is impregnable.
If there IS a way out of the GOR, then there is probably no acceptable revenue sharing agreement that would keep the conference together.
LikeLike
On the ACC’s GOR, what surprises me is not that they signed it originally, but the extension twenty years in the future. It was purportedly the security needed for ESPN to incur the start-up expenses of the ACC network.
But that’s absolutely bonkers. It is common for a new business venture to take a few years to pay for itself. But not 20 years. Any reasonable person should have seen, that although ESPN needed some assurance, it did not need 20 years’ worth.
You can see why Syracuse and BC signed up for that. But it only needed one school to say, “Stop this nonsense. None of us is smart enough to forecast where the industry will be in 20 years. Ten is more than enough.” And yet, none of those 15 schools is known to have voiced the slightest objection.
LikeLike
I think the problem was Swofford had sort of screwed them into a corner as another commentator said above.
He signed that 12 year undermarket deal in 2010 that was clearly a conflict of interest (involving Raycom/his son/etc.), and then ESPN had them cornered after Maryland left right after that deal was signed and so ESPN was able to demand that long-term extension in exchange for the network back in 2016.
The smaller schools knew that there would be others (FSU especially) that would consider jumping to the SEC or Big Ten around 2021-2022 and probably pushed for a long-term lock in as well. Hard to see who other than FSU would have been pushing against.
Clemson had just lost an NC and hadn’t yet become as big as it has after continuously going to the NC game and winning a pair.
Problem is it’s hard to go 30 years without hitting the open market; just continuously extending an undermarket deal leaves you hugely exposed as they are.
And now the Big Ten can position to open its deal again in 2034 with an aim towards targeting ACC schools.
LikeLike
I read that earlier post, and I agree the first deal was the original sin. But it required only one of the 15 to call ESPN’s bluff, and there is no evidence that anyone even tried. The negotiations would of course have been private. But in in the notoriously gossipy world of college sports, if any school resisted or hesitated at all, I expect it would have leaked by now.
Bear in mind, the 20-year extension was a double mistake. It prevented schools from leaving, a concern only the minority have. But it also meant all 15 (or at least the football members) are now grossly underpaid. It took only one to see the fatal flaw, and it appears no one did.
This gets back to a comment I made about the Pac-12, another conference that made a series of ruinous decisions on a commissioner’s say-so. Although university presidents are some of the smartest people around, they don’t seem to be very smart about sports. They trust their commissioners to get the details right. Imagine the hypothetical world where the Big Ten was led by Larry Scott, and the Pac-12 by Jim Delany. Where would the two be now?
LikeLike
Yeah, I mean the Pac-12 Networks situation was a disaster from the beginning.
Literally nothing about that plan made sense. The Big Ten had just gone through years of fighting with Comcast and other providers to get carriage while having a 49% owned partner, and the Pac-12 saw that and then went in the route of creating 7 networks including 6 localized ones; of course DirecTV was going to say “never” to that plan?
The whole thing didn’t make sense and it was clear within a few years that it didn’t make sense.
Then they even had a chance for a bailout when ESPN approached them a few years ago about taking over the networks and consolidating/fixing distribution, etc. And they still turned them down despite the networks paying off only around $2 million per school (basically less than a lot of them would make just selling their secondary/tertiary rights to other networks like Comcast/Fox/AT&T sports nets).
The key difference between Delaney and Scott/Swofford is that Delaney understood what drove value here. Probably helps that he had Silverman/BTN/Fox execs advising on moves that would drive TV $.
I feel like that’s one thing that Scott/Swofford never had.
Also helps that the SEC and Big Ten are all giant public universities for the most part with enormous alumni bases of course, but if you’re the ACC/Pac-12 you have to understand what you have and how to drive value to what you have.
LikeLike
Also helps that the SEC and Big Ten are all giant public universities for the most part with enormous alumni bases of course.
Schools and conferences have structural advantages (or disadvantages) that take decades to build or squander. But 25 years ago, the Power Five were seen as approximate equals. If you imagine Larry Scott and John Swofford leading the SEC and Big Ten during that time, those two leagues probably don’t lap the field the way they have done.
LikeLike
Indeed, back in the day (when the B10 had 10 schools and both were on ABC), the Pac actually got more TV money from ABC than the B10. Likely due to the then Pac’s bigger media markets compared to the old B10’s (LA bigger than Chicago, Bay Area bigger than Detroit, etc.)
LikeLike
For sure, I think Delaney and Slive basically did a great job in navigating their conferences to where they are and that was never a given.
The Big Ten’s path was a lot more difficult because we didn’t have schools in a booming part of the country (Georgia+Florida) like the SEC does and they had a surplus of teams to raid from one conference.
The SEC’s additions have all been from the Big 12 (A&M/Missouri and then Texas/OU).
The Big Ten’s were from 4 different places: Big 12 (Nebraska), ACC (Maryland), Big East/AAC (Rutgers), Pac-12 (USC/UCLA).
I’d say both got pretty optimal members out of the past 15 years of expansion; but in the Big Ten’s case especially, that was never an obvious route. If you showed both SEC and Big Ten expansions, SECs seem way more obvious a result.
We were discussing the Texas/ND schools originally as the only way to really get up to 16. Now the Big Ten is at 16 with neither. Maybe Nebraska was the only “obvious” Big Ten addition of the last 5.
15 years ago, if you’d have told me the Big Ten would end up at 16 with Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers/USC/UCLA, I think any of us would be shocked.
And yet all of this is due to savvy decision-making; the BTN deal to start all of these changes, lining up contracts for expiration wisely to dip back in and grab schools. Maryland/UCLA were both in financial distress and needed the timely “bailout”.
LikeLike
Nebraska was the only “obvious” Big Ten addition of the last 5.
I believe it was the only time that the Big Ten said publicly, “We are looking to expand.” I believe Frank the Tank had a blog post that looked at the candidates, and concluded that Nebraska made far more sense than any other realistically available school, assuming Notre Dame wouldn’t move.
The Maryland and USC moves were both well kept secrets. It was well known that Maryland and USC had serious concerns with their existing conferences. But enough that they would leave? Not very many people saw that coming, and certainly not the exact timing.
LikeLike
Maryland and UCLA were in major, if not totally public, financial problems.
Rutgers on the other hand was begging – please anybody take us. Interesting how ignoring sports for years had the only football school in a state of 9 million people and the only football school in the NYC media market of 25 million, praying for any lifeboat in a storm (as was UConn). As it turned out the lifeboat for RU was the Queen Mary, while UConn got a rubber raft (with a leak).
LikeLike
Maryland and UCLA were in major, if not totally public, financial problems….Rutgers on the other hand was begging
Conferences tend to expand in pairs, and one school of the pair is usually the first mover. Rutgers got the call because Maryland moved. Had Maryland stayed put, Rutgers would still be waiting.
Interesting how ignoring sports for years had the only football school in a state of 9 million people and the only football school in the NYC media market of 25 million, praying for any lifeboat in a storm (as was UConn).
The entire Northeast is underpopulated with football schools, relative to the population. If it’s remarkable that NJ with 9 million people has just one Power Five school, it’s even more remarkable that New York with 19 million also has just one, and it’s a private School (Syracuse) that is nowhere near the major population centers. And all of New England has just Boston College.
LikeLike
Though the trump cards the B10 did have were huge alumni bases and fan bases that care about college football and them being spread all over the country.
Anyway, Delaney played his hand well.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t credit Slive that much. Already having 4 king programs and several others that won national titles in Auburn and Tennessee along with insanely fertile local recruiting grounds located in a growing part of the country, the SEC was always going to be a major force regardless of how competent leadership was.
But there were 2 key decisions made by the B10 early in Delany’s tenure that really changed college football.
The first was adding a king program located in a populous state with a major metro in PSU.
The second was rejecting an even bigger and wealthier king program located in an even bigger state with even more major metros in Texas.
Ever since then, the B10 has done pretty well, adding major markets in NJ and MD (also adding a former king in UNL) and of course capturing the massive LA market with USC and UCLA.
But imagine if the B10 had gotten Texas too.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think another issue is that the ACC (much like the P12) were naive about how much the ACCN would earn. I think they expected huge revenue gains from it like the B10 and SEC were showing, and they were so jealous of others having a network that they didn’t rationally consider the numbers. They may also have been misled or poorly advised in meetings about the likely revenue stream (the P12 certainly was).
LikeLike
Speaking from ACC country… respectfully, this is not true. ESPN had the ACC over a barrel – play ball on their terms to get an ACC Network, which included the 20-year contract, or no network & get picked apart by the other conferences. The ACC didn’t really have the leverage to force ESPN to shorten the contract term.
The whole intent of the getting a dedicated network and tv channel was to open up a new revenue stream to help keep up with the B1G and the SEC – but none of us were misled or naive to think there would be anything but a slow start – particularly given the long delay in getting Comcast on board. Definitely not saying the ACC deal isn’t problematic – but it isn’t that the ACC Network is failing; rather, the B1G and SEC are outpacing even the most optimistic of projections.
I can offer no wisdom as to the launch of the PAC Network – clearly Larry Scott and crew thought they would receive better offers going the route they did.
LikeLike
https://www.cardiachill.com/2019/10/1/20893414/new-accn-revenue-estimate-close-to-10m-school
I certainly can’t claim everyone in ACC territory had the same expectations, but I saw lots of talk similar to this article expecting $9M per school per year from the start. And that was without Comcast (they expected to be well over $11M by then).
LikeLike
The ACC deal is not undermarket for the majority of its members. It is undermarket for Clemson, FSU, and Miami. That was and remains the problem.
LikeLike
That deal is so old, it may actually be undervalued for all of them. Sports rights have been climbing in value very quickly.
https://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/49883/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
In 2012, the “current” B10 deal was worth $20.7M per school per year on average. The ACC’s deal was $17.1M. The B10 has tripled that value, and is expected to nearly double it again in the new deal. Meanwhile the ACC value has only doubled.
I know the B10 is more valuable, but not by that much.
LikeLike
Jack Swarbrick told an interviewer “Three Factors Could Lead Irish to [Join a] Conference”.
They are: “The loss of a committed broadcast partner, the loss of a fair route into the postseason, or such an adverse financial consequence that you had to reconsider.” Obviously, there is wiggle room in all three of these.
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering about NBC involvement in the Big Ten negotiations as it pertains to ND.
If the Big Ten grants NBC a package, doesn’t that help ND remain independent? Would help by enabling NBC to package double-headers and have the games feed into one another depending on timing.
Biggest problem both NBC and ND have is that without a conference feeding viewers to the channel regularly, it’s literally just ND fans watching their games that don’t involve national implications.
The question for the Big Ten is, what’s the $ number at which that’s worth doing.
I think the Big Ten should avoid NBC until/unless ND enters the conference, just no point in enabling anything to do with them unless the $ are huge.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten grants NBC a package, doesn’t that help ND remain independent? Would help by enabling NBC to package double-headers and have the games feed into one another depending on timing.
Notre Dame currently plays its daytime home games at 2:30 ET, which straddles both of the afternoon windows. This means the only possible doubleheaders are day–night. Thus, a Big Ten game cannot flow directly into a Notre Dame game, and vice versa. This assumes neither party is willing to alter its traditional game time windows.
I think the Big Ten should avoid NBC until/unless ND enters the conference, just no point in enabling anything to do with them unless the $ are huge.
If NBC is the best offer, I doubt the Big Ten would turn down the deal because of what Notre Dame might do in in the 2030s. And it is only an issue when ND plays an afternoon home game, of which there are just four this year. The other dates, ND is on the road or playing at night. It would be an awfully weak reason to turn down an otherwise favorable deal.
LikeLike
Marc,
The B10 could look at using odd windows to work with ND’s 2:30 games. Have a special 11 am kickoff once. Or have a 6 pm game to switch to when the 3:30 games are all blowouts, or end and people are waiting for prime times games. Maybe NBC is willing to try more non-exclusive windows rather than just following ABC’s schedule. TV windows have smeared (12, 12:30, 1, 2, 2:30, 3:30, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7:30, 8, …) the past few years.
LikeLike
z33k,
Yes, it would help ND viewership. Conversely, having B10 games on CBS and NBC adds prestige to the B10 (and removes a little from ND as NBC is no longer exclusively theirs).
More importantly, it’s a major network that would have good reason to give the B10 lots of press and positive coverage. It’s another balance to ESPN’s power to slant things in favor of the southeast which they own. And it may be another non-ESPN network willing to invest in the CFP. That means more money and more balanced coverage.
You can’t run the B10 by trying to hurt ND. You’ll cut off your nose to spite your face. That’s why B10 schools keep scheduling ND and always will. ND will never be forced to join the B10, they have to want to join. Trying to screw them over isn’t the way to ease that transition.
LikeLike
Yeah for sure, just something I was thinking about; regardless, as long as the $ works, there’s a place for NBC or CBS as well considering the additional exposure.
Even though the SEC-CBS deal was way undermarket value for at least a decade or so, that exposure was unparalleled for them.
LikeLike
Wall St Journal academic rankings of remaining Pac-12 schools and BYU:
2 Stanford University
36 University of California, Berkeley
45 University of Washington-Seattle
131 University of Arizona
133 University of Utah
138 Brigham Young University-Provo
182 University of Colorado Boulder
214 Arizona State University (Tempe)
241 University of Oregon
238 Washington State University
310 Oregon State University
LikeLike
With BYU, it’s more the religion thing.
LikeLike
“With BYU, it’s more the religion thing.”
I agree. Item of interest, here are the Wall St Journal academic rankings for the New Big Ten:
9 Northwestern University
19 University of Southern California
24 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
27 University of California, Los Angeles
45 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
48 Purdue University West Lafayette
58 University of Wisconsin-Madison
80 University of Maryland, College Park
81 Michigan State University
85 University of Minnesota Twin Cities
97 Indiana University Bloomington
99 Ohio State University (Main campus)
107 Pennsylvania State University *
136 Rutgers University-New Brunswick
169 University of Iowa
363 University of Nebraska-Lincoln
* Penn State actually refuses to participate. Ranking is for the last year they were included, 2017.
LikeLike
I love the WSJ but their school rankings are terrible. Similar to Forbes. Too many subjective criteria for to ranking schools. People focus on student selectivity but then that needs to be adjusted for school size. Salaries of alumni also need to factor in location and cost of living. The only true objective measure for graduate level programs is research grants.
LikeLike
The only true objective measure for graduate level programs is research grants.
Research is not truly objective either, given the many different ways it can be counted. But still, I would need a lot of convincing to believe that BYU that far ahead of Colorado and Oregon.
LikeLike
“I would need a lot of convincing to believe that BYU that far ahead of Colorado and Oregon.”
Marc, I agree but it is nonetheless interesting to see that the Big Ten’s two newcomers are so highly regarded.
LikeLike
“I love the WSJ but their school rankings are terrible.”
Well, they all use different metrics. Salaries of alumni do skew the data because the large public universities graduate a lot of teachers and nurses, relatively low paying professions. And yes, student selectivity should obviously be adjusted for school size and mission. The large public universities were created to produce educated citizens, not hand out pink slips.
LikeLike
What I like about the WSJ/Times is that they emphasize outcomes (graduation rate, graduation salary, debt after graduation).
What I don’t love is that 20% of the ranking is a nebulous “student engagement”, including a subjective 12-question survey. 30% is also resources, a big portion of which is endowment and an emphasis on small class sizes (which can be good, but it also may mean less access to the best, most qualified lecturers.)
It’s hard to compare schools that are small, private, expensive, and liberal-arts focused to a land-grant, research-based university, which has a mission of educating the masses in a huge variety of fields and expanding human understanding.
Research numbers are important to the schools in the Big Ten and Pac, not only in depth but in breadth of research (what fields and how many fields). This is how these schools define themselves. All rankings are flawed, but you could argue that their rankings are more for graduate work, but in my mind, the ARWU is the best metric for the large schools we’re discussing.
LikeLike
All rankings are flawed, but you could argue that their rankings are more for graduate work, but in my mind, the ARWU is the best metric for the large schools we’re discussing.
It depends on what you want to measure. ARWU gives heavy weight to the number of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists on the faculty — almost irrelevant if you are not studying one of the handful of fields in which a professor could potentially win those awards. ARWU’s research criteria are highly skewed towards science. I majored in a scientific field, so I have nothing against it. Still, it isn’t everything.
LikeLike
I agree with your comments. Most people seem to cite the USNWR. I would suspect faculty or university provosts have a good idea.
A few of my neighbors are professors and apparently there is a protocol that you teach at a peer school of where you received your PhD or a step below.
It would seem to me a better approach would be to group schools in tiers. Otherwise we seem to be splitting hairs. I mean how much difference is there between a Michigan, UCLA, Cal etc.
LikeLike
A few of my neighbors are professors and apparently there is a protocol that you teach at a peer school of where you received your PhD or a step below.
There is a clear logic to that. Universities turn out more Ph.D.’s per year than there are vacancies. After the best ones get jobs at peer institutions, some need to look at the next step below, and this cascades down the hierarchy. An Oregon State Ph.D. might have to accept a job at Boise State, but is pretty unlikely to get hired at Stanford.
It would seem to me a better approach would be to group schools in tiers. Otherwise we seem to be splitting hairs. I mean how much difference is there between a Michigan, UCLA, Cal etc.
It is human nature to rank. How much different is it from the AP football poll or a critic’s ranking of the best 10 films he reviewed last year?
LikeLike
Kevin,
USNWR rankings are terrible (largely based on opinion polls), but schools pay attention to them because prospective students do. They also consider the Shanghai/ARWU and Times Higher Education rankings, because international students pay attention to them.
As for what they actually care about internally, Carnegie classifications and MUP numbers matter to the science and engineering folks (basically, how much research money do we get) at the big schools. I have no idea what rankings the arts may consider useful.
LikeLike
I just want to clear up a misconception: Nurses actually make good money compared to most other college graduates the first years/decades out of college, though they do tend to top out quickly.
LikeLike
Another major factor in rankings is how states treat their major state universities.
For example in Texas, FL, and, I am pretty sure Georgia, the top state schools UT, TAMU, UF, FSU and UGa (and GaTech?) have been become much more exclusive (and higher ranked) as additional students apply in growing states.
Not that many years ago, being in the top 10% of a high school class guaranteed entry to UT Austin. Now Austin requires top 6% of class. Top 10% is good for UT system, but not for Austin.
In some other states, such as NJ, the opposite approach is taken. With Rutgers, for example, the mail campus in New Brunswick officially merged with the Newark and Camden campuses. Both Newark and Camden have had and continue to have lower admission standards.
In addition, on the main New Brunswick and Piscataway campus, additional colleges have been added in addition to Rutgers College and the College of Engineering. These newer colleges also have lower admission requirements.
The result is that the RU reaches more students, but on paper is less selective for some of those students.
I have no idea, but perhaps Penn State has similar issues with campuses all over the state which are less rigorous than the State College campus. (Again this is a guess and that is all).
LikeLike
Interesting article about the dire financial situation that UCLA has been in . . . .
https://www.purdueexponent.org/sports/article_404724a0-fd59-11ec-8b05-57459a224cdf.html
LikeLike
Yes, it’s a story Jon Wilner covered for years. It’s the reason UCLA would consider leaving the P12. But joining the B10 won’t magically fix it if they decide they suddenly new/better facilities. They won’t instantly get $100M, and their expenses for travel will go way up.
RU is still generating huge debt, though they only recently reached a mostly full share payout. Hopefully RU can actually start paying down their debt, and even lowering the student fees, with the B10’s next TV deal.
Have you seen any projections about that, Bernie?
LikeLike
I’m doubtful the ACC/Pac10 idea will come together, but it isn’t crazy. The combined network could generate a large amount of new money for ESPN (and the schools, of course). That, in turn, would give ESPN an even bigger incentive to help keep the ACC/Pac10 alive.
Scheduling-wise it could make a surprising amount of sense. Both leagues could continue their 8-game conference schedules but implement a 10-game within-the-alliance requirement — with exceptions for the four annual SEC/ACC rivalries and the Notre Dame games. Despite 14 vs 10, the numbers work out exactly because Notre Dame already plays Stanford annually. And the result would be a lot of relatively high-quality inventory for ESPN, which needs decent inventory much more than FOX does.
In the end, it will come down to how far ESPN is willing to go to protect its (now greatly enhanced) investment in the ACC. They will clearly not ante up B10/SEC money for the “alliance” but they might find enough to keep everyone reasonably competitive — at least until the ACC GOR and contracts expire in 2036. The reason to consider it is simple: Keeping the ACC (and Pac10) intact makes a lot of money for them over the next 14 years. Seeing the leagues blow apart means destroying an increasingly profitable cable network and losing to FOX some good-value schools (UNC, Virginia, GT, Oregon, Washington, etc.) whose rights ESPN currently controls at a discount. Moreover, they’d also end up paying more money for other rights they already control if Clemson, FSU (and, maybe, VT, NCS, Miami, etc.) ended up in the SEC.
Looked at that way, ESPN has a lot of incentive to make things work by easing the discounts it gains through the existing ACC contract. The question would be whether they could find a solution good enough to make themselves and both leagues happy (or at least quiescent). That would be quite a task.
LikeLike
Both leagues could continue their 8-game conference schedules but implement a 10-game within-the-alliance requirement — with exceptions for the four annual SEC/ACC rivalries and the Notre Dame games.
The Pac plays 9 games today. What’s the marginal value of the 10th game? Pac-12 members typically play one P5 non-conference game. They do not often play the ACC, but the games they do play might be on ESPN already. I assume ESPN will have at least some of the Big 12, and possibly some of the Big Ten (as it does now). So how many games will ESPN be getting that it would not have had anyway?
Let’s say ESPN takes over the Pac-12 networks and merges it/them with the ACC network. There is probably some economy of scale to run one network instead of two, but I am not sure how much money it is worth.
In the end, it will come down to how far ESPN is willing to go to protect its (now greatly enhanced) investment in the ACC.
Protect…from what? Much of this depends on whether they face any serious risk of losing schools before 2036. I am not convinced there is much risk.
LikeLike
For Oregon, I think they basically have a deadline to join the Big Ten in the next 2-4 years if they’re ever going to do it.
I’d be very surprised if they make it to 2030 and keep their AAU status. Barring some sort of surprise like a re-merger with the medical school that spun off from them (Oregon Health Sciences University, formerly University of Oregon Medical School; may not solve the problem though since it’s in Portland), the AAU has been very aggressive in telling universities to leave without facing a public expulsion process like Nebraska did.
Nebraska got into the Big Ten just before it got expelled from the AAU, and Oregon’s window probably closes in the next 2-4 years.
If they do get expelled, I think just Washington/Stanford would remain as Big Ten targets on the West Coast.
Obviously, the Big Ten isn’t going to be rushed into a decision on expansion to 18, but just something to consider. I don’t think Oregon will be considered when the ACC schools are available; just my hunch based on how AAU is chasing schools at the lower end of their research #s out…
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-turned-down-1b-offer
I think it’s important to remember this. The P12 looked at getting outside funding a few years ago.
The Pac-12 was offered $1 billion for 15 percent equity in the conference by a private-equity firm, per sources involved in the process. The biggest pushback to making the deal came from two particular camps — USC and UCLA.
“The Trojans have had one foot out the door for two decades,” said one source.
Might that funding have helped keep them together? I have no idea.
Also in the article, 2 P12 AD’s say they feel confident the remaining 10 schools will stay together (unless the B10 calls, presumably).
LikeLike
USC has had one foot out the door for the last 10+ years since the PAC12 changed its TV revenue sharing to equal payments for all members. Before that it went 55% directly to the school with the rights and 45% to the conference where it was equally shared. That formula would yield $75M+. So much less financial incentive to move.
Now Scott said that it would not matter because all of the PAC schools would have greatly increased revenue with the PAC networks, better TV deals, etc. When none of that materialized USC was ready to move at the first opportunity. After the TX/OK move the PAC should have seen this coming. Extending the GOR was a non-starter since USC would not agree (I am sure that deal with sharks would have locked them in for 50+ years). They could have given USC more $$$ but apparently, the rest of the PAC thought the isolation on the Pacific coast protected them.
LikeLike
https://saturdayoutwest.com/usc-trojans/usc-reportedly-put-off-by-equal-revenue-distribution-in-pac-12/
Here’s an article reflecting USC’s stance.
But unequal revenue shares were doomed from the moment the P10 expanded to 12. It takes a 75% vote to change the model, and USC, UCLA and UW always supported the appearance-based model. With 12 members, they needed a 4th vote to keep the unequal revenue and nobody else liked it. And remember, the P12 got the largest TV deal in the history of CFB at the time they signed it. It was reasonable to think that equal shares could work. The idea, as I recall, was that USC wouldn’t get less than before and everyone else would make big gains.
USC is angry the P12 didn’t ask them about whether the model should change in the next deal, but I’m not convinced USC was willing to be the bad guy and publicly try to force the change. By the time they were confident they had an option in the B10, the size of the revenue difference was so large that unequal shares probably wouldn’t have fixed it.
And while LA is expensive, I’m not sure the Bay area schools would listen to that argument. UW and UO probably didn’t feel very sympathetic to it either. You mention USC getting $75M+, but I’m not sure how their deal could sustain that. UCLA and UW and UO would also be getting more. How little would the bottom schools get? See again the expensive location argument.
Scott’s P12N plans really hurt, but I’m not sure even a perfect plan would’ve prevented the loss of USC and UCLA. I just don’t know that the P12 rights have grown in value as quickly as others now that pure markets are losing some value. The lack of fervent fandom out west hurts them, especially when USC is down.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-phil-knight-can-help-put
A small nugget:
A Big Ten athletic director told me on Friday that the television market of Seattle and the brand of Oregon are attractive selling points. He didn’t think they brought nearly enough value to cut them in with a full share of the conference’s $1 billion-a-year deal with FOX. But the Big Ten’s expansion is being fueled by FOX and it’s possible the network might covet more inventory in the Pacific Time Zone.
If UW and UO aren’t seen to provide nearly enough value, then Cal and Stanford don’t either. This is ND, +1 from the P12 if necessary.
LikeLike
I can actually see a long-term situation where 2 get in:
2030s:
Big Ten targets UNC, UVA, and Duke. Who’s #4? Would you take Ga Tech or Washington as #4.
I actually think UNC, UVA, Duke, Washington is a pretty attractive group of 4. Washington strikes me as more attractive than Ga Tech or anybody else on the board at that point.
Then you’d be at 20. If ND ever comes on board, add them with Stanford and the Big Ten never expands again.
LikeLike
You’d end up at 22 with ND, UNC, UVA, Duke, Washington, Stanford as your final 6.
Presumably Oregon would have lost AAU along the way and no longer would be in consideration.
I’m pretty hesitant on Ga Tech because I don’t see how they get any Atlanta/Georgia market share.
They’re there sure, but they aren’t Rutgers in NYC DMA; that DMA is 90% SEC fans.
LikeLike
z33k,
Yes they’re SEC fans, but they are rabid CFB fans. They watch every good game on TV. OSU pulls big ratings in Atlanta regularly. And there are a lot of northerners down there who aren’t pro-SEC, too.
LikeLike
Sure, but I think you take a market you can own that’s in the #13 state by population rather than Atlanta which you would never own or come close to owning.
LikeLike
The Big Ten will be at 16 for a long, long time. We should plan accordingly.
LikeLike
Yeah we have 10 years of stability in all likelihood.
LikeLike
I don’t see that, but it’s possible. I don’t think the B10 wants Duke without ND in that scenario. Duke brings a hoops brand but no market, and all the other #4 options are problematic as well:
* UW kills the P12, which I don’t think the B10 wants, and adds more long trips for non-revenue teams. Money is lost.
* Stanford also add long trips, plus little football brand. Money is lost.
* GT adds a big market, but little else. You’d count on the yankee transplants and visiting teams to drive viewership there, and Atlanta will always watch a good CFB game. But the SEC will always be #1 there, and I don’t know if the B10 wants to play second fiddle anywhere. Otherwise, this is Stanford in the south with long travel and limited brand. Money is lost.
It’s possible UNC would demand Duke, but that’s where the B10 really hopes that ND is persuaded to finally join as well. I really don’t see 20 without ND, because B10 teams would like to play each other.
LikeLike
Yeah I think the Big Ten sees the optimal 4-group to 20 as UNC, UVA, ND, Stanford probably.
But if UNC insists on Duke, I think we stay at 19 for a year or two or three while we negotiate with ND (they’d join in 2036 if added in 2032-2033).
But if we get to 2035 and ND still says no, who do you take as #20? I think Washington is the best looking team on the board at that point.
LikeLike
Based on the numbers, I’d stay at 19. We stayed at 11 for 18 years and there’s no point expanding to lose money.
LikeLike
Actually, unless the B10 wants to build an academic competitor to the Ivy League (and sacrifice some TV money for more long-term OOS/International tuition), only adding ND (and a partner) makes sense.
UNC, UVa, Duke, Stanford, Cal (and GTech and UW) all are subtractive in TV revenue and are only potentially additive if B10 schools get more full-pay OOS/international students because they elevate their academic brand to close to the Ivy League.
BTW, you can’t have an odd number of members and an odd number of conference games. You can’t play 19*9/2 = 85.5 conference games a year.
Back when the B10 has 11 members, they played an 8 game conference slate each.
LikeLike
With both the SEC and B10 chasing UNC, there is no evidence they are subtractive in TV value. They might be, but they might not, too.
We’ve at least seen estimates for Cal and Stanford and UW and UO that say they would be subtractive. Has anyone seen estimates from experts on the value of any of the ACC schools?
LikeLike
Those are rumors that UNC is being chased and most of them came before the LA expansion.
There is no indication UNC is additive now.
LikeLike
I’m reading…the rumor mills keep spinning…more “expert opinions”…and my opinion isn’t changing.
The Big Ten is going to make it to 20 before it signs its new TV deal. The details are being worked out now…so it might take a few more weeks to get the ducks in a row…but it will happen.
UO and UW will be the first to come. The Pac-10’s “alliance” lifeline will be severed.
Then, don’t be surprised to see the four mountain schools move to the Big 12. A Pac-8 just wouldn’t have any mustard for the TV networks anymore.
Down to the final 4 teams, Stanford’s fate will teeter in the balance…and the Big Ten will throw them a lifesaver. The Big Ten will sit at 19 a few more days…
And then the “national scope” of the Big Ten will be crystal clear…their status as the “Big Dog” among national sports conferences (yes, SEC football is still better…but when you factor Olympic sports plus eyeballs watching football…and 20 teams vs. 16 teams…and Pacific to Atlantic Ocean in geography…the Big Ten will rule.)
That will finally tip Notre Dame to join.
The SEC will be held in check due to the ACC’s GOR…and alignment will be paused until 2030.
LikeLike
I don’t see how that makes sense for the B10. You don’t add 3 schools that lower the conference payout with the hope that the 1 valuable prize will then join. If ND still said no, the B10 would presumably add Cal in your scenario and be stuck with reduced revenue shares and less frequent games against old foes.
I think it would have to happen in the opposite order. ND would have to say they will join, but only if those 3 are also added. That’s the only way more P12 schools will get in. The B10 isn’t a charity for good schools.
LikeLike
Stanford and Cal actually provide more value than UW and (especially) UO. You can’t discount the Bay Area market.
LikeLike
Sure you can, because they don’t care about the local schools. Just above you said Stanford and Cal would both be subtractive to the TV deal. The experts say that too.
LikeLike
That doesn’t contradict what I said.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-pac-12s-d11
Markets still matter, despite what so many people say now.
Former Fox Sports Network president Bob Thompson told me that it’s not all about the number of potential TV households but that’s the starting point for the major networks. There’s subjectivity involved, too. Per Thompson, “research shows bulk of a rating for any particular game comes from the participants home markets. Attractive matchups add more viewers. Why do you think NFL has three times number of regional games each week vs. national games? Ratings and market size matter to networks.”
And that’s from an OTA perspective. Now add in subscription fees for cable channels, and it’s a huge factor.
LikeLike
Yep. Hence why Cal and Stanford are definitely more attractive than UO.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-coach-rankings-2022-uscs-lincoln-riley-debuts-in-top-spot-arizona-states-herm-edwards-plummets/
Dennis Dodd thinks the B10 and SEC are trying to exclude everyone else, except ND, from a future CFP.
You may have noticed: The SEC and Big Ten are a Notre Dame (or so) away from staging their own playoff.
…
The battle now is to see whether one or more of the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 can amass enough notable programs to keep the SEC and Big Ten from staging a credible playoff on their own.
…
This reveals a further reality: It truly is a scramble now. Superconferences are here and not going anywhere. Insert Notre Dame and maybe Stamford (as a partner for ND), Clemson and Florida State or Miami. Suddenly, a two-conference playoff becomes a reality. Everything else could be an unsavory Group of Six or Seven. At that point, the obvious play is for a new subdivision to form that stages its own playoff.
I think Dodd is way off. The B10 and SEC want to dominate the CFP on the field and financially (I assume), but keeping everyone else out would be lunacy. It would garner terrible PR, and be begging for lawsuits and boycotts. They may get so far ahead that the others eventually choose to start a second tier playoff, but the B10 and SEC wouldn’t instigate that separation.
What they may do is try to dominate the key bowls. That’s fair game, and sort of what they’ve done for a long time anyway. I wonder if the P12 and B12 keep their equal ties to the Rose and Sugar Bowls, and if they get paid the same as the B10 and SEC by them going forward. I wonder if the Orange wants to keep their ACC tie. What about the Fiesta and Cotton? I’d look for this to be a space with a lot of upcoming changes.
As with the CFP, I think the NCAA tournament is safe. They don’t want to get rid of it. It makes lots of money and keeps small conferences happy to have an equal shot. I doubt they could make more by dropping everyone else anyway.
LikeLike
I am with you. The P5 have a history of giving the lower-ranking leagues postseason access, even if they could have frozen them out. They knew that, once in a blue moon, a team like Cincinnati would get a playoff berth while a P5 champ was denied. It was considered an acceptable price to pay.
It’s better to provide that sliver of a chance, rather than face Congressional scrutiny and public blowback. The scheme has worked. The G5 leagues have accepted the crumbs that the P5 gave them, even though just one G5 team made the playoff in eight years.
And Cincinnati’s golden ticket depended on a sheer coincidence: they happened to have Notre Dame on their schedule in the year they were very good. You always get extra credit for beating Notre Dame. If the best game on their schedule had been Purdue, I suspect an undefeated record would not have been good enough.
In an upcoming 12-team playoff, I practically guarantee the G5 will be assured a bid. That still means 11/12ths of the bids go to the P5 (or Big Two, Middle Three) in most years.
LikeLike
The thing to watch for with the NCAA tournament is a reduction in AQ bids.
SEC was already grumbling about that for years, and I think Big Ten/ACC are receptive to the argument that we need to see consolidation in smaller leagues.
Too many leagues are holding on just because of their AQ bid; if the # of AQ bids is reduced, that will free up more slots for the Power leagues and force consolidation among the smaller leagues.
I think that’s almost guaranteed to happen at some point.
LikeLike
Meh. There are 32 conferences for over 350 teams, so 11 per conference. That’s reasonable.
There are 36 at-larges, and the B10 has gotten 9 teams in recently. How many more mediocre power teams should be in?
If you want more in, expand the tournament some more. Go to 80, with all the 13-16 seeds being replaced with play-in games featuring a weak AQ hosting an at-large (when do they ever get those teams to come to their campus?). So the weak champs still have a shot to win a game, and the mediocre power teams also get in. More importantly, you’ve now reduced the share of the pie the AQs get. Hopefully the extra round would more than pay off.
LikeLike
Remember NCAA has committees currently working on revamping the constitution, bylaws, and Division I criteria.
The rumor mill says upping the required sports from 14 to somewhere around 18-21, raising minimum amount of aid awarded and requiring minimum ratios of coaches, trainers, academic support to players on rosters has traction.
There are easily 75–150 schools that could say we can’t double our budget (or more in some cases) just to play for a shot at the NCAA Tournament. There would be a 3-4 year grace period based on current conversations.
I don’t know what sort of auto bid reduction is being discussed but 12-15 years ago there was a proposal circulated that would award 16 auto bids to the 16 highest rated leagues based on a three year rolling average of RPI and then award 8 more to the 8 highest rated conference champions that weren’t in the top 16 conferences.
LikeLike
When I was in Indiana in the late 60’s, every high school got into the state BB tourney. One time a small HS won it, leading to the true movie “Hoosiers.”
Let everyone in.
LikeLike
“When I was in Indiana in the late 60’s, every high school got into the state BB tourney. One time a small HS won it, leading to the true movie “Hoosiers.” ”
That town was Milan, population 2,114 (2020), and the year was 1954. Indiana went to a class system years ago with six different classes based upon size, so we have six state tournaments – twelve if you include wonem’s hoops too. Everybody still gets into the state tournaments.
LikeLike
That’s high school, and the games don’t require the infrastructure that college tournament games do. There is zero need for 2-22 college teams to make the postseason.
LikeLike
I think Dodd is correct, and it’s interesting to me that the only place online (that I frequent) that in the aggregate seems to be in denial of it is this well-informed and thoughtful forum. The reason for that, I think, is that posters here give undue regard to university presidents and not enough consideration to ESPN and Fox. I suspect most here and elsewhere probably agree that on the whole college football would be better if it more closely resembled the amateur ideal in which the service academies, Vandy, Rice, etc., could compete equally. Those days are long gone and aren’t coming back, and NIL is of course now exacerbating the problem. University presidents made of sterner stuff might have headed off the direction we are heading decades ago, but university presidents are no longer made of that. They are, generally speaking, money-raising cowards.
Within 10 years, and probably within 5 years, we will indeed be in a two conference, 40-48 team college football world. Other schools may still play, but it will be akin to what we currently call the FCS level.
LikeLike
It won’t be a purely 2 conference world that soon (TV deals wouldn’t allow it). The others will slowly fall behind, but the scholarship limits guarantee that some other schools will stay competitive. Besides, the legal headaches of trying to force a separation are too great. They will set new standards and let those who are willing to spend the money come along, just like I-A from I-AA. The other P5 conferences will do it, and some of the G5. And then over time that group may shrink more.
The bigger issue will be legal changes that force paying players, etc. That may force a split not of the superconferences choosing.
But either way, there is no value in legally excluding everyone else from the postseason. Let it happen naturally, like the G5 in the current CFP. There will still be games among the different levels OOC, and a chance for others to win the title. That’s all I’m claiming.
LikeLike
I’m an old fart but I think the late 60’s and early 70’s were a great era.
In many ways we returning to that era when Oklahoma might have 120 on scholarship and Tulsa I think was capped at 75 in the Valley.
The only schools I have any concern for are the tweeners the P5 schools having to contend with cash cows like UT, OU, USC, UCLA and whether soon or in 12 years ACC schools.
It is likely some number of them are carrying debt based on income projections of future tv and ticket sales with those schools in the conference.
LikeLike
I have heard some suggest that the B10 and SEC will raise the scholarship limit to 95 to try to price out a lot of schools, but I don’t see it. Title IX would make that very hard to do, as schools have to make progress towards being in compliance. Adding 10 CFB scholarships would require adding at least that many for women as well, and there aren’t that many women’s sports left to add at some of these schools.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-and-the-rest-of-us
John Canzano has a handy list of Nielsen TV household data for each P5 market. He needs to add Austin, TX to the SEC list of “to be added” and both Austin and OKC to the B12’s “to be deleted” list, but otherwise helpful.
Current households in top 50 DMAs by conference now:
ACC – 28.3M
B10 – 28.2M
B12 – 10.3M
P12 – 19.3M
SEC – 21.6M
After known realignment:
ACC – 28.3M
B10 – 33.9M
B12 – 13.5M (I subtracted Austin and OKC)
P12 – 12.4M
SEC – 23.3M (I added Austin)
Other nuggets:
Ex-Fox Sports Network president Bob Thompson told me recently not to expect the networks to play well together. The Big 12 blames ESPN for ushering Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. And Fox, no doubt, greased the wheels for the USC and UCLA move to the Big Ten.
“I think the days of Fox and ESPN partnering on things like the Big 12 and Pac-12 are probably over for now,” Thompson said.
Meanwhile the B10 is chasing 3 network partners (including Fox and maybe ESPN), maybe more.
On-field performance matters. Brand matters. But nothing matters right now more than your favorite team’s television footprint and potential media revenue.
LikeLike
Absolutely crazy and wrong that they don’t count Kansas City for Missouri and the SEC. 1) Kansas City is in Missouri, and 2) there are tons of Missouri alumni and Missouri fans in Kansas City. Columbia isn’t any farther from Kansas City than it is from St. Louis, which they did could. It doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Jayhawks are more popular in KC but there are plenty of Mizzou fans there based on my fairly frequent visits.
LikeLike
It’s probably 2/3 Kansas, 1/3 Missouri. Bit Missouri definitely has a huge presence. Especially for football.
LikeLike
I think the DMA’s are a standard tool not adjusted for the distribution of football fans. When it gets down to dollars, they are not going to pay for Syracuse as if it were an NYC team. They are not that dumb.
LikeLike
One huge problem with the Canzano analysis is his continued view that the ACC is part of the number 1 market, NYC. He says the ACC involvement is based on Syracuse.
He therefore counts the 7 million plus households for both the B1G and for the ACC. That is totally wrong. A number of years ago, the NYT did a study of college football favorites in the NY market and not surprisingly Rutgers was by far number one, with ND number two. Penn State was third. Cuse was way down.
Now in 2018 another study was done with the same results. RU is by far number one, followed by ND and Penn State. UConn was 4th then, but that would no longer be true since UConn joined the Big East and went independent in football. Michigan is #5 and finally Cuse is number 6.
How does being a distant number 6 team in a huge market means that it is an ACC market? Eliminate NY and the ACC loses one quarter of its market.
https://knoji.com/article/10-most-popular-college-football-teams-in-new-york-city/
LikeLike
Bernie,
I think he was told that’s how it is officially viewed. Syracuse is in-state and NYC is the closest major market to it, so they get to count it for OTA purposes. Nobody is claiming the depth of fandom in all those markets is equal, just what markets they can officially claim.
LikeLike
You are probably absolutely correct. Of course, if the ACC starts “falling apart”. Syracuse with its 7 million plus family units will be one of the teams in deep trouble, since they are a private school in a tiny TV market (number 81).
If a miracle happened and a new Jimmy Brown went to play football at Syracuse, that might change. The chance of that is about zero.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/tmg/mark-blaudschun/college-fb-playoff-plan
Mark Blaudschun’s solution to CFB is FB-only conferences with the P12 getting split – the southwest 4 to the B12, the northwest 6 to the ACC. ND stays independent (and Army for some reason), and that gives 4 power conferences and 70 total teams.
Army makes no sense to me, especially with the other academies in the next tier down. I could see the concept of FB-only conferences catch on if I-A CFB separates from the NCAA. I’m not sure if this breakdown would be the best split, but it’s at least reasonable.
LikeLike
That’s a perfectly sensible solution, so it will never happen.
LikeLike
https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel-three-fold-challenge-for-imperiled-acc-in-wake-of-latest-conference-realignment/article_c0737dd0-4ca2-5de2-a1ad-13796d7d22c9.html
A good look at things from the ACC point of view.
3 key challenges for Jim Phillips (quoted, but truncated):
1. Manage simmering resentment among some members
2. Cement the ACC’s access to the College Football Playoff by pushing aggressively for the 12-team model, complete with automatic bids to the six highest-rated conference champions
3. In concert with ESPN, determine if there’s a way to markedly enhance ACC revenue
The ACC, B12, and P12 should be glad the B10 supported autobids. That gives them a place to build from on that idea, since the G5 and SEC clearly won’t support it.
LikeLike
A good luck…but impossible to achieve.
1. Money eases resentments. There’s no way to get more. Scratch this one.
2. In other words, “you screwed this up once…now, fall on your sword and get back what you rejected the first time.” This is the only feasible one…but it makes their commish looks like a doof.
3. I guess this is through a Pac-10 merger? But it would mean more conference games for the ACC. So…8 in ACC, plus the old SEC rivalry games or Notre Dame games…plus 1 for most ACC schools against a Pac-10 school. It’s something. But it’s FULLY contingent on the Pac-10 remaining strong. If the Big Ten takes 1 or 2 more Pac-10 teams…that desirability might be gone for ESPN.
LikeLike
If the ACC takes Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal and/or maybe Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Kansas they could probably increase their payment.
LikeLike
I don’t see it. USC/UCLA will probably work because they are national brands. Otherwise, the extra money doesn’t justify the disjointed geography.
The number of powers in the Big 10 and SEC is important, but what drives the gate and the excitement (for TV viewers as well) are the rivalries. Its why the ACC can have 3 programs with the FSU/Miami/Clemson history and still lag well behind the SEC and Big 10. They are a frankenstein merger of a regional ACC with pieces of a frankenstein Big East. And they have stupid divisions.
LikeLike
USC/UCLA will probably work because they are national brands. Otherwise, the extra money doesn’t justify the disjointed geography.
Until 10 days ago, I thought the geography didn’t work for USC/UCLA either. Part of the Pac’s problem is they need more of the country to care about their games. Playing more in ACC territory does that.
The number of powers in the Big 10 and SEC is important, but what drives the gate and the excitement (for TV viewers as well) are the rivalries. Its why the ACC can have 3 programs with the FSU/Miami/Clemson history and still lag well behind the SEC and Big 10. They are a frankenstein merger of a regional ACC with pieces of a frankenstein Big East.
I think even before they started scooping up ACC schools they were a lesser league than the SEC or the Big Ten. They are also stuck in a way below market TV deal that was an unforced error by their previous commissioner.
And they have stupid divisions.
Which are going away and would’ve gone away long ago, but for a stupid NCAA rule that they had to lobby for years to change.
LikeLike
1. Money eases resentments. There’s no way to get more. Scratch this one.
Of course there are ways.
2. In other words, “you screwed this up once…now, fall on your sword and get back what you rejected the first time.” This is the only feasible one…but it makes their commish looks like a doof.
No commissioner casts a vote like that without canvassing his members. We don’t know what his unconstrained vote would have been, but I am sure he didn’t act on his own.
LikeLike
Concur with Marc. Of course there are ways to increase revenue.
The ACC and ESPN are co-owners of the ACC Network; further coverage areas and subscribers benefit both financially. This week, the ACC and PAC are expected to receive & review data on the feasibility of the potential “loose merger.” The PAC is desperate to have carriage, and it’s likely that the ACC would share some portion of the profit from bringing the PAC onto their platform. Otherwise, why bother with the merger?
With that said, expanding to new markets by adding new members to the conference is the most direct way to increase revenue – ESPN charges more per each in-state ACC subscriber than for those outside the ACC states.
However, the market/subscriber add has to be of enough value that everyone’s share of the pie grows. Adding West Virginia to the ACC doesn’t appear to achieve that, because WV has a small population and viewing audience. Adding all of Northern California, Washington, and Oregon (and perhaps Arizona, Utah, and a TX school area) would likely move the needle significantly enough to merit consideration.
The ACC doesn’t have to make the same money as the B1G and the SEC – but it needs to stay close. Further, given the shift in population to the south, it’s possible the ACC Network would be extraordinarily profitable by 2035. The question is whether there’ll still be an ACC around then.
LikeLike
Population/demographic shifts are very slow. And fans tend to carry their old loyalties with them. Hence why the B10 has fans spread all over the country.
LikeLike
The ACC, B12, and P12 should be glad the B10 supported autobids. That gives them a place to build from on that idea, since the G5 and SEC clearly won’t support it.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t recall that the SEC was adamantly opposed to P5 autobids. I mean, if that were the last big issue, it is not the hill they would choose to die on.
In most seasons, the P5 champs would be among the top six champs anyway. That is even more likely to be true in the future, now that the division requirement has gone away. If — as I expect — most P5 leagues pit their top two teams in the CCG, it is pretty unlikely that the winner of that game would be outside of the top six.
The G5 opposed P5 champ autobids, because as a practical matter it would limit the G5 to one playoff team per year. It would also cement the current conference hierarchy. In the subcommittee proposal, the G5 would have at least a chance of placing two teams, even if it would seldom occur.
LikeLike
After the 6+6 plan was rejected, Sankey’s backup plan was an 8-team CFP with all at-large bids. He said the SEC absolutely would not support 8 teams with autobids, presumably because it would limit the SEC’s access to 3 teams (assume P5 + 1 for G5). His third plan was SEC-only.
In short, they are pretty seriously against autobids. The thought is that if an upset gets an unworthy champ in, they are stealing a bid. As conferences are dropping divisions for their CCG (so bids won’t be stolen), SEC opposition to P5 autobids may lessen. But with the weakening of the B12 and P12, they might dig in their heels.
LikeLike
Sankey was against autobids in an 8-team format, because the SEC would not be gaining anything vs. what they have today. If the proposal were the subcommittee plan with the so-called “5+1” replacing “top 6 champs,” he never drew a line in the sand about that. In almost all seasons historically, “5+1” and “top 6” produce the same results, and if we know that, I am sure Sankey did too.
My sense is that because the three hold-out leagues were objecting for such a wide variety of reasons, Sankey had no reason to concede anything. I find it awfully difficult to believe that this issue would truly have been enough to derail the whole deal, if they could have settled everything else. The practical difference is pretty close to zero.
I mean, if the ACC is opposing a playoff because “things are changing too fast in in college sports,” then there is no point in offering them compromises about the mechanism for selecting the teams.
LikeLike
Marc,
Sankey felt they had already made large concessions by even considering CFP expansion. As if the SEC doesn’t also want the extra money expansion would generate.
But philosophically, the SEC really does oppose autobids. I’m not saying they’d die on that hill, but they really do believe its wrong (because it doesn’t favor them). They didn’t believe conference championships should matter in the original CFP, wanting it to be purely based on rankings (so their runner-up could get in over other champs more easily). They believe they have the best football teams, and they want that to be the sole criteria.
Now, I think they’ll resist autobids because the B10 supports them. They view it as a power struggle, and don’t want to give in on anything the B10 wants.
LikeLike
SEC’s fine with auto bids as long as there are plenty of at-large. They didn’t like with a 5+3 or 6+2 but they were all in on 12 with 6+6
LikeLike
6+6 does not include autobids as I’m using the term. We’re talking about autobids for the P5 champs specifically. 6+6 was just the top 6 champions.
LikeLike
Everybody in the working group opposed P5 autobids because they knew that sort of thing is what got them in trouble with politicians and the anti-trust division. Didn’t mean they would lose on it, but it is an unforced error creating problems when they already have enough to deal with.
LikeLike
And that’s a valid concern I suppose, though it can probably be effectively worked around using objective criteria that just happen to favor the P5. They could use SOS for the champs to pick the top 5 that get bids, with the 6th going to the highest ranked champ remaining. It gets you to the same place, but is completely objective on the surface.
One wonders if they took the time to explain their reasoning behind all the details of their plan when presenting it, and if so if it just went too quick for it all to sink in. Beyond that, did the B10 perhaps view the legal issues differently?
LikeLike
Does anyone here really believe that the B1G and SEC are likely to simply have a two conference playoff system, even if ND comes to the B1G and both conferences add a couple more teams? There is a lot of chatter out there that “people” are afraid that the two conferences will move on to a playoff without the other 25, or whatever number, teams.
Why would the B1G and SEC do that? How would a playoff like that be more than 4 teams, say top two in each league. It makes no sense to me, even of both leagues are 20 teams.
I think that the B1G and SEC are both better off with at least one other major P? conference and two would be even better. Financially the other conferences would be way behind the big 2, but still far far ahead of the G5.
I just watched a video with an Oregon State reporter and the Beavers now pay their head football coach $4 million, which is about as much as the entire financial payoff from the Mountain West. OSU would lose about 90% of its revenue if the PAC dies and it moves to the MWC. I realize that neither the B1G nor SEC are losing sleep over OSU and its future. There is also talk in both the Oregon and Washington legislatures about each state possibly making its two state schools a package deal. Good luck with that.
Personally, I think that the B1G might hit 20 with ND and three very special other teams (maybe UVa, UNC, and ?). At that point all of the traditional rivalries would really be stretched even without more teams. Would the Purdue – Indiana Old Oaken Bucket game be played every second or third year? They have only been playing annually for nearly 100 years.
LikeLike
Like you, I don’t believe the B10 and SEC want that. That’s just inviting government scrutiny and legal hassles. I think they want an expanded playoff that sounds fair but in which they actually get a lot more access than other by virtue of having better teams.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the B10 want the 5+1+6 model, figuring the autobids keep people happy and invested while the SEC and B10 will get most of the at-larges. But the revenue split is key. I expect something like 50% split roughly 6 ways (like the CFP is now – equal share per P5 conference, maybe adjusted for conference size, plus 1 equal share for the G5), with the rest based on games played (like NCAA tourney shares). That lets the B10 and SEC also earn more.
LikeLike
By the time the next CFB playoff contract comes up for a vote the terms P5 and G5 won’t apply by any reasonable measure. It will be the P2 and the other 8. If the PAC, ACC, and B12 stay as-is they will clearly be better than the other five, but way behind the B1G and SEC. How much access and revenue sharing will the B1G and SEC be willing to give up? A shorter CFB playoff contract timed to end near the ACC GOR expiry might make sense. Would an 8 team playoff with 4 auto-bids to highest rated conference winners and 4 at-large bids be enough?
LikeLike
Bob,
I’m not sure about that. The B10 and SEC will separate by money (and probably success), but I think the B10 wants the entire P5 to be structurally above the G5. Just 2 conferences is too small to maximize the profits (for now). So I think the B10 wants a setup in writing that keeps the P5 above the G5, then lets the B10 and SEC be first among equals.
As for deal length, the first CFP was 12 years. Doing that again would align with the ACC GOR nicely.
The SEC said it would only accept 8 if they were the top 8 in rankings (all at-large bids). The B10 wants autobids, which would require at least 12. I think they are likely to end up back at the 12 team plan, with the B10 pushing for 5+1+6 and the SEC for 6+6.
LikeLike
The B10 can protect 2 annual rivalry games per school even at 24 schools so yes, the Old Oaken Bucket game (and pretty much all other major rivalry games) could still be protected.
LikeLike
Yes, the B10 would clearly want to keep the major rivalries intact:
1st rivalry for everyone:
* In-state rivalries (IN, IL, MI, CA)
* Regional rivalries (NE/IA, WI/MN, OSU/PSU, UMD/RU)
2nd rivalry:
* Big money (OSU/MI, USC/ND)
* Regional rivalries (WI/IA, PSU/RU)
* Maybe: Other regional rivalries (NE/MN, IL/PU)
Maybe a 3rd rivalry:
* Regional rivalries (NE/WI, MN/IA, PSU/UMD)
But could some (like NE/WI/IA/MN) become play 2 out of 3? Possibly. That’s one reason 24 stinks.
At 20, the B10 could do 3 locked + 6/16. Or 3 locked + 2/4 (play 50%) + 4/12 (play 33%).
Even at 24, they could try:
3 locked + 6/20
3 + 2/4 + 4/16
2 + 7/21
LikeLike
All of your rivalries can be played every year by using 5 pods:
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Central: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
East: OSU (plus Penn State game), Michigan, MSU
Atlantic: Penn State (plus OSU game), Rutgers, Maryland
Pacific: USC, UCLA
Every team plays 3 “pod” games. Ten teams have 3 fixed games. The other six teams have only 1 or 2 fixed games — they get to 3 games by playing out-of-pod games with each other on a rotating basis.
LikeLike
Steven,
I suppose, but how is that better than 3 locked rivals (or variable locked rivals up to 3)? You have pods of 4, 3 and 2, each of which needs a different rule for scheduling, plus an outside locked game. And you have locked some games that aren’t needed (NW/IN, NW/PU, IL/IN, OSU/MSU).
LikeLike
Brian,
Sorry, I didn’t explain it clearly enough. I’m talking about just 3 games for each team. For 10 teams (west, central, OSU, PSU) all 3 games are fixed. The remaining teams play their fixed games plus additional game(s) with each other to complete 3 games. For example, USC has only one fixed game (with UCLA) so it plays Michigan (which already has 2 fixed games) and Maryland (which already has 2 fixed games). This completes the 3-game quota for USC, Michigan and Maryland. Next year USC will play two different teams to fill its 3-game quota. In addition USC will play 6 more conference games which vary from year to year.
I prefer a 4-4-3-3-2 structure (rather than 4-4-4-4) is because it better fits the established rivalries. Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin fit perfectly in a 4 pod. USC and UCLA belong in a 2 pod. PSU, Rutgers and Maryland are a natural 3 pod. These are the teams that want to play each other every year. Why add arbitrary teams to a pod just to get the same size pods?
Note: there is some flexibility in the structure. OSU and PSU (who are in different pods) want to play each other every year, so they have been given a fixed game (which completes each team’s 3-game quota). This is better than putting OSU into PSU’s pod where it will play Rutgers and Maryland every year.
LikeLike
Steven,
I understand your plan, but it seems like a worse version of Marc’s preferred “variable number of locked teams” plan since you are forcing certain rivalries that don’t need to be locked (NW/IN, NW/PU, IL/IN, OSU/MSU).
I think the B10 will stick to a simpler system (3 locked for everyone), but they could employ a plan like Marc’s.
LikeLike
I could see the BiG ultimately at 24 teams (5-6 Pac-12, ND, & 3-4 ACC). It could put the private schools together for scheduling and also lock in arch-rivalries, thereby providing a lot more room for the historic BiG public schools to preserve their traditional rivalries.
For example: USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, and Georgia Tech/UVA (as a quasi private school) play each other every year. USC also gets to play UCLA every year, Stanford plays Cal (or some other Pac-12 school like UW or Oregon), Northwestern plays Illinois, and Duke plays UNC.
This arrangement would preserve many existing rivalries of the newcomers and NW’s arch-rivalry, while fomenting new rivalries between academically-elite private schools which already (for the most part) recruit students (not just athletes) nationally.
I do think that in a 24-team conference, however, that the number of conference games might need to increase. At 9 games, one “lock” group would miss another “lock” group every single year. Would have to go to 11 conference games to ensure that each “lock” group plays 2 teams from each of the other “lock” groups every year.
LikeLike
No need to overthink it. With 24 schools and 2 locked rivals, all schools play the other 21 schools 1/3rd of the time. There are schools like Iowa and Minny with more than 2 major rivalries, but not many.
LikeLike
USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, and Georgia Tech/UVA (as a quasi private school) play each other every year.
I can’t see them doing that. Every Big Ten team wants to see the “kings” as often as possible, because those are the games that get the major TV exposure and lead to home sellouts. There are not enough kings to go around, but every game you needlessly lock means fewer chances to play the others.
So they are not going to lock ND vs. Duke, for example. ND has seldom played Duke (just 4 all-time meetings before ND joined the ACC). USC vs. Georgia Tech would be just as objectionable.
LikeLike
Yes. You would have to double money to convince Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue and Michigan St. to support a plan like that. They want Michigan and Ohio St. The only way I see a 24 team conference working is if it is a 2 league conference with the old core in one league. So a 5-3-2 schedule, everyone in your 6 team division, half the schools in the opposite division and 2 games each year against the 12 in the other league.
Even then, I don’t see the money working, as much as the Big 10 and SEC are making now.
LikeLike
Money only makes sense when you count the extra OOS/international tuition revenue that would come from elevating the B10 to the only conference that is close to the Ivy League in academic prestige.
LikeLike
The problem with the TV list is it only covered the top 50. If you go to the top 100 you will pick up Syracuse at 374K (also Rochester and Buffalo if counting all of western NY). Based on the list Nebraska has no market, despite being one of the top draws in ratings at about 1.5M per game over the last 5 years (and without good on field performance). Omaha is about 450K.
LikeLike
Well, there is government regulation of media ownership in the top 50 markets, so that might be why the list ends there.
Also, Nielsen uses just the top 56 markets to gather a large part of their data (metered market data) for overnight ratings estimates. The top 56 markets include 70% of the US population. Those 56 markets are the only places Nielsen puts their electronic sets to collect data. The rest is done with paper diaries.
LikeLike
For those thinking there may be some more movement on the ACC/B12/P12 tier, apparently there is no penalty for leaving the P12 as long as you don’t leave early. That’s unlike the B12, which does have an exit fee. That makes it virtually impossible for the P12 to raid the B12, but at least plausible for the B12 to raid the P12.
LikeLike
There are many estimates of the costs to leave the ACC. Here is one of the latest ones. It says:
There are 14 years remaining in the grant of rights, not 10. However, any school would give a few years’ notice of its departure, so 10 is a nice round number to use.
But the article does not count the exit fee, which is 3 years of distribution. Hence, the actual cost to leave in ~2026 is more like $500 million. Per school. So, FSU and Clemson to the SEC, with nothing else happening, would cost a cool billion.
That is why the GOR is widely seen as unbreakable. The SEC obviously makes more money than the ACC, but not to such an extent that $500 million per school could be financed.
LikeLike
I have read several ACC columnists lately who suggest the league blew it in 2020, when it permitted Notre Dame to join as a full member for one season only — the COVID year when most teams were playing shortened schedules and only within their conference.
The columnists suggest that the ACC should have told Notre Dame, “Either join us permanently or you don’t get to play football this year.” It was the one time the ACC had more leverage over ND than the Irish had over them.
I am skeptical this would have worked. I suspect the Irish would have cancelled their season, rather than join the ACC permanently in football. Even if ND would have taken that deal, is blackmail the right way to build a partnership?
LikeLike
Yeah, ND could have just severed their relationship with the ACC then and there and jumped to another conference.
LikeLike
The ACC blew it when:
1.Commish John Swofford allowed ND to join in all sports but without football.
2. Commish John Swofford set up the conference’s pitiful TV deal.
3. Commish John Swofford brought in academic skank Louisville to replace Maryland.
LikeLike
I certainly agree with #2.
Commish John Swofford allowed ND to join in all sports but without football.
This is a different version of the blackmail argument — if tell them it’s all or nothing, they would have joined in all. That is pure speculation.
Commish John Swofford brought in academic skank Louisville to replace Maryland.
If they had rejected Louisville, what was their next best available option? The second-choice school was reportedly UConn, which was not the cure for any conference’s ills.
LikeLike
“If they had rejected Louisville, what was their next best available option? The second-choice school was reportedly UConn, which was not the cure for any conference’s ills.”
No choice would have cured the ACC’s ills but UConn, Army, Navy, UCF or West Virginia all made a lot more sense than Louisville.
LikeLike
I won’t go through why those schools were rejected (or not asked), but it appears we agree on the core point: none of them would have cured what ails the ACC today.
LikeLike
Colin,
“No choice would have cured the ACC’s ills but UConn, Army, Navy, UCF or West Virginia all made a lot more sense than Louisville.”
Army and Navy have no interest in joining a P5 conference, so they weren’t options. West Virginia was in the B12, so they likely weren’t an option. UCF in 2013? The AAC just formed. UCF was a nobody back then, and they aren’t much better of a school.
That gets you back to UConn or UL. UL is the better brand, makes more revenue, and was considered the better CFB program. FSU and Clemson made the call on this expansion, with support from those who didn’t want UConn around after the lawsuit.
LikeLike
Concur in part and dissent in part.
Partial ND add was good. It provides value in assuring a monster tier program is involved. It also bought ACC time to develop relationship with ND.
Problem was failing to financially capitalize on ND and top ACC programs.
As to Louisville, commissioner did not add Louisville a three-fourths or larger presidential vote did that.
Presidents are free to pass on commissioner suggestions. Sun Belt did so when Benson offered New Mexico State and Liberty as members and again when it was Eastern Ky and Jacksonville State. President led initiative brought Coastal Carolina in a school Benson hadn’t reached out to.
Louisville is a presidential call period.
LikeLike
As to Louisville, commissioner did not add Louisville a three-fourths or larger presidential vote did that.
That is true of every major decision in every conference. But university presidents have a pronounced tendency to accept the commissioner’s recommendations. That is why both the ACC and the Pac-12 are stuck now in ruinous TV deals.
Sure, there are exceptions (Benson), but far more frequently the presidents accept the recommendations in front of them. This is to be expected, because the presidents spend only a sliver of their time thinking about sports, whereas the commissioner is a full-time professional.
LikeLike
“Partial ND add was good. It provides value in assuring a monster tier program is involved. It also bought ACC time to develop relationship with ND.”
Consider the flip side. Where would Notre Dame’s other sports be playing right now if the ACC hadn’t groveled and allowed them to join without football? The Big East? (Butler, Creighton, DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Villanova, Xavier and Providence College)
LikeLike
Let me tell you why that would not have worked.
For years, the Big Ten has told Notre Dame, “Either you join on the same terms as everyone else—or you don’t join.” ND had the luxury to reject this offer, because there was always a conference that would accept them without football, such as the original Big East and now the ACC.
If no major conference was willing to accept them on these terms, then they might as well join the one that pays the best—which is the Big Ten. That’s why the ACC was never getting them as a full member. If the ACC had played hardball, then they were just sending the Irish into the arms of another conference.
The ACC got the best deal it could: Notre Dame’s Olympic sports, five football games a year, and the assurance that if the Irish joined any conference in football over the life of the deal, it had to be the ACC.
LikeLike
Marc, you didn’t answer the question. Where would Notre Dame’s other sports be playing right now if the ACC hadn’t allowed them to join without football?
LikeLike
Marc, you didn’t answer the question. Where would Notre Dame’s other sports be playing right now if the ACC hadn’t allowed them to join without football?
Sorry…I thought I did. Notre Dame most likely would have joined the Big Ten. If they have to join a conference in all sports, they might as well join the best-paying one. I would not be surprised if ND told the ACC flat-out, if we have to join a conference in all sports, we are joining the Big Ten.
There is a slight chance that Notre Dame would have placed its Olympic sports in a non-P5 league, even though there are none left with the prestige the Big East originally had. That is a big come-down, but other schools have screwed their Olympic sports to get the football deal they want.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Consider the flip side. Where would Notre Dame’s other sports be playing right now if the ACC hadn’t groveled and allowed them to join without football? The Big East?”
Probably, yes. And ND would be fine with that. Their ego is tied up with their football program, not who they play in Olympic sports. Their other sports would fit well with the Big East.
LikeLike
Yes, ND could very easily have joined the Big East for all sports other than football. I have no great insight, but I assume that basketball is the most important non-football sport to Notre Dame. The BE is one of the best 3 or 4 basketball conferences in the country. It is not the ACC, but close enough.
I assume that ND would be perfectly willing to let its other sports, Olympic or otherwise, go with the BE.
By the way, UConn is now a member of the BE. Of course, UConn football may literally disappear within 5 years, since UConn is not exactly high profile as an independent.
This is of course exactly where Rutgers might be absent beings saved by the B1G. Reading the UConn fan boards, the greatest lament is “100 miles”, meaning RU is 40 miles from NYC and in that TV market, while UConn is 140 miles and not in the TV market. So the comment goes that the UConn had won multiple national basketball championships, but is 100 miles to far from NYC.
LikeLike
Is there some reason everyone assumes Big XII wouldn’t have offered ND similar terms as ACC or maybe even PAC-12?
ACC better fit how ND views themselves but Big XII and Big East would have offered.
LikeLike
Reading the UConn fan boards, the greatest lament is “100 miles”, meaning RU is 40 miles from NYC and in that TV market, while UConn is 140 miles and not in the TV market.
There are no limits to fan delusion. UConn is not in the AAU and has even less history playing FBS football than Rutgers. If UConn could magically teleport 100 miles closer, it still would not have received the invitation.
LikeLike
Colin,
The alternative to #1 was no ND deal at all, not ND joining in full. ND would’ve found another home for their teams (Big East?), and another path to bowl games. If they’d tried to force membership and ND truly felt cornered, they likely would’ve joined the B10 instead to spite the ACC.
The ACC got 5 games to boost TV ratings, plus help getting the ACCN more carriage. They made a lot of money from the ND deal, and paid ND very little for it. It was a good deal for them.
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s a common thread in stories about ND. Fans or media say conferences should blackmail or boycott ND to force them to join and nobody in actual positions of power ever consider it. It’s a terrible idea as you note. ND would just be angry and then leave as soon as possible. You can’t force schools to want to join your conference. It has to be natural, or they won’t stay.
ND would’ve found a way to survive last year. Just like the ACC couldn’t have forced them to join before. ND agreed to 5 games and helped the ACCN get a lot more carriage – that was a fair return for a small payout.
LikeLike
SEC Shorts is great.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34217498/inside-stunning-usc-ucla-move-big-ten-chaos-followed
In-depth ESPN piece about how the USC/UCLA move came to be.
LikeLike
A great thirty tweet thread from David Hale on realignment. ND, ACC GOR, and ACC’s future
LikeLike
His estimate of the full exit costs are on par with the others I have seen: in round numbers, $400–500m per departing school. There is obviously no imaginable deal with the SEC or the Big Ten that pays so much, which is what makes the GOR seemingly ironclad.
My hypothesis on what it would take to pierce the GOR: the high-value schools plus ESPN approach the low-value schools with a Hobson’s choice:
1. Continue to make the league’s sub-par TV dollars for the next 14 years.
2. Dissolve the GOR, and in return we pay you $X more than you were otherwise getting.
The question is, what does $X have to be, so that it’s juicy enough for the low-value schools to accept, and worth it for ESPN, but not half-a-billion per school?
I am being deliberately vague about who is considered a “high-value school,” because that is not clear. But it is certainly less than half of the ACC. Maybe 4–6 schools at the outside.
The key point is that the $500m in exit costs (if a school just leaves on its own) is totally hypothetical. Nobody is getting that. It is meant to be so high that it would never be paid. So the only real question is how much is it worth to Boston College to tear up the deal, so they can at least get something more than they do now.
LikeLike
To be clear, I do not consider the above hypothesis likely. There are too many parties who could scuttle it, and I don’t even know if the imaginary number $X exists.
LikeLike
GOR: the high-value schools plus ESPN approach the low-value schools with a Hobson’s choice
I don’t think ESPN will do that, the ACC is too profitable for them. I think the only option out is Frank’s blue sky plan. 11/14 or 12/15 is all that’s required. Make a new conference (or merge with another) similar to how the Big 8 became the Big 12.
LikeLike
In Frank’s blue sky proposal, what can the Pac-12 offer that would induce all 15 ACC members to accept? If they can join the Pac-12, then they join the Big Ten or SEC as well.
LikeLike
what can the Pac-12 offer that would induce all 15 ACC members to accept?
1) Out of the ACC TV contract and into one that can be taken to market that has a 99.9% percent chance of making more money.
2) Yes, they might lose someone, but everyone else is still going to be in the “best of the rest” conference (i.e. no one is worse off than before) that would be able to raid the Big 12 to ensure its status as the middle class. They *could* even delay the dissolution vote until after all PAC invites are accepted making it harder for anyone to leave.
LikeLike
“1) Out of the ACC TV contract and into one that can be taken to market that has a 99.9% percent chance of making more money.”
I simply see no advantage of any combining or melding of the ACCN and Pac-12 Network. Both are train wrecks. Different types of train wrecks but nonetheless train wrecks.
If either of them could start over and engineer things differently, that might work. But it seems to me that both conferences are stuck with the deals that they’ve already made.
LikeLike
@Colin
I simply see no advantage of any combining or melding of the ACCN and Pac-12 Network. Both are train wrecks. Different types of train wrecks but nonetheless train wrecks.
If either of them could start over and engineer things differently, that might work. But it seems to me that both conferences are stuck with the deals that they’ve already made.
The only advantage (as detailed in Frank’s blue sky idea) is that the ACC teams would be able to shed their undervalued deal and go to market with the PAC. They won’t get anywhere near the Big Ten (unless something crazy happens) but they would probably still pull more than the Big 12.
LikeLike
Marc,
It seems like the ACC might be better of exploring unequal revenue distribution. Split a portion equally, then split the rest based on a rolling average W%. That at least makes FSU earn more money, not just get it for being FSU. And that lets WF or BC or Pitt get rewarded for a surprisingly good season. I prefer basing it on winning to just TV appearances because at least there’s some merit involved. But you could also split a portion based on appearances to reward those with brands and markets.
Call the average ACC payout $40M (it’ll be there soon).
If the bottom 8 schools get paid $20M, that saves $160M to spread around. The top 3 could make $80M and the next 2 $60M. It’s not ideal, but it might keep the key schools happy enough to stick around and see what changes over the next decade.
LikeLike
Why would the ACC agree to unequal distribution with 14 years left on the GOR unless ESPN was going to throw in the $$$ to pay for it? It is something that could be done 10+ years from now when it can be combined with a new contract and extending the GOR.
LikeLike
They wouldn’t need to do it immediately, but doing it at the very last second probably wouldn’t work either. Doing it a little early shows they’re making a sacrifice they didn’t have to make to try to help the others. If you wait until FSU and others are already halfway out the door, it may be too little too late.
LikeLike
Brian: Unequal revenue sharing won’t be enough to keep the powers in the ACC anyway; they’ll bolt the first time they get an SEC/B10 invite, so it would just mean less revenue and more resentment by the rest of the league.
Everyone should just accept that the ACC will break apart when the ACC GOR is near expiration.
LikeLike
Probably not, but it’s their only shot at it. It depends in part on how much more they could get to FSU and Clemson. If it gets close enough to what the the big 2 are paying, then it would take a long time to pay off the exit fee.
And if the big 2 are getting paid enough, there may not be sufficient value in enough ACC teams to breakup the league. The SEC is only going to offer Clemson, FSU, and Miami if they clearly are additive. It’s possible that they won’t be worth it by 2036. And if those 3 stay, would UNC leave? Even if UNC would leave, the ACC could easily survive the loss of UVA and UNC.
I’d give it a small chance of succeeding, and I’m not sure I would support it as one of the undesirable schools either. But it is one thing that is under their control.
One way they could do it is with CFP and NCAA tourney money. Let those who earn that money keep more of it. Especially with an expanded CFP, there should be more money coming than before so the smaller schools might not even have to take a haircut – just stay level while the brands get more. Depending on the financial model for the new CFP, that might be a way for Clemson to earn a lot of money (and UNC and Duke in the tourney).
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/wac-altering-basketball-tournament-formats-by-introducing-bold-new-seeding-concept-based-on-advanced-analytics/
On a completely different topic, the WAC is going to use advanced analytics from the entire season to seed their basketball tournaments. They will still pick the top 12 based purely on conference record, but seeding will be based on a formula created by Ken Pomeroy that uses the NET metric the NCAA uses.
I like the idea of not treating every conference game equally in this era of unbalanced schedules, but should non-conference games impact the conference race? It makes sense in a 1-bid league where the NCAA tourney seed of your champ (which influences the odds of a win earning an extra share) might vary greatly based on who wins the conference tournament. In principle, I don’t think it should matter and it certainly shouldn’t be taken into account in a power league.
Would you support the B10 (and others) weighting conference games based on opponent and location? It probably wouldn’t change a lot, but it might be a little more fair.
LikeLike
Frank,
could the Big Ten offer immediate membership to the BTAA to ACC schools with a contract to join the Big Ten in football after they are able to regain their media rights, no later than when current grant of rights expire?
If so, they could offer to Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Miami to lock them in for the future consolidation of Football, this would be an incentive for Notre Dame as well. we could then offer immediate membership (2024) to Oregon and Washington and Stanford. The end result would be a 24 member league no later than 2036. I would expect ND to come immediately with the three PAC teams. if the Big Ten wanted a large presence in Florida we could substitute Florida State in for one of the above and help them attain AAU status sooner rather than later, with their commitment to doing what is necessary to raise their research capabilities to qualify.
LikeLike
Won’t happen, in fact University of Chicago finally got kicked out (was a member of BTAA formerly CIC) for decades after leaving the Big Ten.
They decided the membership should only be full-time members of the athletic conference.
And the vote to take members in typically occurs after a school enters the conference (as far as I remember). Of course it’s a formality, but wouldn’t be a surprise if they changed the rules for who could join.
I know Johns Hopkins isn’t a part of it despite having their only D1 sports, lacrosse, in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agreed. And more importantly, BTAA membership doesn’t mean that much financially or legally. It’s not going to make any difference to the ACC schools joining the B10 or not.
If the B10 wanted to do that, they would just offer them B10 membership now with it starting on the field in 2036 (PSU “joined” in 1990 but didn’t play until 1993 in football). Offer them 2-3 road games annually at B10 schools and pay them for the games (like buy games, but the conference pays not the school).
LikeLike
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sds-sources-sec-wants-to-end-expansion-race-stay-at-16-teams/
Sources in the SEC say the presidents want to stop at 16 schools. Even if the B10 adds ND, they don’t see a threat that would force expansion. It might change if the B10 went to 20+ and the SEC felt the size difference mattered.
The reason is twofold: value and the desire to keep college football intact.
I believe the B10 feels the same way. They don’t want to eliminate the ACC, B12 or P12. And honestly, there just aren’t many schools (ND, maybe UNC) that bring sufficient value to justify all the downsides to expansion. You don’t add 4 schools just to keep the same payout. ND would raise the per school value. UNC might (depends on partners, etc.).
FSU and Clemson probably don’t add anything to the SEC, and the B10 doesn’t want them. The P12 schools don’t add anything to the B10, and the SEC doesn’t want them. Nobody from the B12 is additive or coveted.
I think expansion is largely over, with the middle 3 considering unequal revenue distributions as needed to keep schools happy.
LikeLike
The reason is twofold: value and the desire to keep college football intact.
I’d be a lot more impressed if FSU and Clemson were available and added value. Otherwise, “the desire to keep CFB intact” is a kind of empty promise.
Five of the SEC’s last additions came from the Big XII or its predecessors. “We will let you keep your legs, although we whacked off both kneecaps.”
LikeLike
The lack of valuable options is why they can make that statement. I doubt FSU and Clemson actually raise the average for the SEC noticeably even if they are available. ND would, but they know ND would lean B10 over SEC.
The B10’s in a similar position, with ND the only clear additive school but UNC might be important enough for demographics to be worth it.
The next really big step will be (in the 2040s as a guess) when the power conferences truly consolidate into a semipro football league by dropping the non-brands and pulling in the top remaining brands to have about 50 total. All other sports will remain in conferences, and the schools left out will still play in that second tier for their own title.
LikeLike
Sorry Brian, I didn’t see you had already posted the source article for my tweet.
LikeLike
That sort of overlap happens all the time here, since you have to reload the page to get the latest comments.
LikeLike
“The B10’s in a similar position, with ND the only clear additive school but UNC might be important enough for demographics to be worth it.”
Do you guys understand the venom and loathing that UNC would experience if they were to bolt the ACC – to either the SEC or B1G – after UNC alumnus, former UNC QB and former ACC Commish John Swofford mired them into this pitiful, ironclad TV deal? Duke and NC State are located less than 20 miles from the UNC campus.
LikeLike
Yes, and so does UNC. But Duke and NCSU fans already direct venom and loathing at UNC non-stop, so that’s not really a change.
UMD suffered it and survived, despite losing their main rival (UVA). USC and UCLA will experience it. NE experienced it. UT and OU will experience it. Every major school that moves has to deal with it. UNC won’t move unless it becomes worth it to them financially to put up with it.
Blaming UNC for Swofford and the TV deal is a reach. They can blame him when UNC seems to get a favorable deal, but everyone got a crap deal with this. It was the best they could negotiate, and they all know that because they agreed to the deal. It’s not like the ACC would be getting $20M per school more if Mike Slive had been their commissioner then.
LikeLike
That should have been, “five of the SEC’s last six additions.”
LikeLike
Only ND would justify expansion solely on TV value terms (and a partner would be needed).
UNC is additive financially only if, besides ND, you also take Stanford, Cal, Duke, UVa, (+ maybe GTech and UW) to form a conference that rivals the Ivy League in academic reputation to establish an academic brand that draws in extra full-pay OOS/international students (like the Ivy League has).
LikeLike
Only ND would justify expansion solely on TV value terms (and a partner would be needed).
To quote FTT, Notre Dame is so valuable that the Big Ten would take them even if the partner were Sam Houston State.
UNC is additive financially only if, besides ND, you also take Stanford, Cal, Duke, UVa, (+ maybe GTech and UW) to form a conference that rivals the Ivy League in academic reputation to establish an academic brand that draws in extra full-pay OOS/international students (like the Ivy League has).
Good luck making the math work. It sounds like a stone cold loser to me. The Big Ten schools would like to have those OOS/international students, for sure, but they are not valuable enough to make up for the TV revenue you would lose.
You are also presupposing a funding mechanism where the academic side makes money on an conference expansion, and then funnels money to the athletic departments to make up for the money they are foregoing. Such a thing has never been done. Not even the Ivies do that.
LikeLike
I’ve done the math already: assuming only a mere extra 100 full-pay OOS/international students every class and OOS/international tuition being $30K more than in-state, that’s 30Kx4x100=$12mm/year, which is likely more than enough to make up for the decrease in TV money and then some as it’s not like the NoCal schools, NC schools, and UVa bring nothing with them (they have some pretty big markets, for one, as well as some stellar brands, especially in basketball). And that’s not even counting the extra fundraising from alums (a bigger deal with the Bay Area schools; as well as Atlanta and Seattle).
Also, there are cross -subsidies everywhere in universities. Right now, a lot of B10 athletic departments give money to the academic side. The athletic side making less (so giving less) while the academic side makes more is the same thing as the athletic side making more.
This has the potential to be a really big deal. And I’m not even counting tuition from cash cow masters programs (a lot of the Ivies run those, trading off their academic reputation; Columbia does this a ton) or the networking opportunities of creating an Ivy-like brand.
It does require B10 presidents to be far-sighted, though.
LikeLike
In short, tuition money dwarfs sports money.
LikeLike
Couple of interesting links . . .
https://buckeyeswire.usatoday.com/lists/big-ten-expansion-sp-five-year-averages-football-ohio-state-ranking/
https://buckeyeswire.usatoday.com/lists/big-ten-expansion-five-problems-usc-ucla-ohio-state-football/
LikeLike
Travel is such an overblown concern for the original 14 B10 schools. I’m sure the B10 will schedule smartly so that all the non-revenue sports teams for a school in a season (fall, winter, or spring), if they have to visit the LA schools for that year, all head out to LA together on a charter plane for a long weekend where they can play both LA schools.
Travel is a much bigger deal for the LA schools, but they were willing to join the B10 and bear that burden, and I’m sure the B10 will schedule smartly for them too, probably having them go on week+ long roadtrips where they can visit and play several B10 schools on the same road trip.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve done the math already. . . .
When no conference ever has done what you are proposing, nor even considered it, I think you need to seriously consider the potential that your math is wrong. Imagine that I (not an airplane designer) came up with a supposedly better new plane design that none of the experts ever considered. Maybe I am so smart that I can design planes better than them. Far more likely is that I just do not know what I am doing.
LikeLike
Marc, I’ve said this elsewhere, but no other (non-Ivy) conference has tried because no other conference has had the opportunity and/or resources to build a league to rival the Ivy League academically until the B10 recently. In this case, we already have a test case: the Ivy League itself, it now is a massive academic brand
LikeLike
We already have a test case: the Ivy League itself, it now is a massive academic brand
The Ivy League was not founded on the economic theory you are espousing. Their membership has been remarkably stable. They once invited Northwestern to join, but the Wildcats turned them down. If your theory were correct, this is a trade Northwestern should have been glad to make — lower athletic revenue in exchange for the prestige of being deemed an Ivy League school.
LikeLike
I can certainly see your logic Marc but I am not sure that Northwestern’s prestige has been negatively impacted by remaining in the B1G. Perhaps their endowment is higher being in an athletic conference due to more alumni engagement opportunities. Hard to say.
Certainly Stanford or Duke or Vandy have not been harmed by their current affiliations.
LikeLike
It’s a trade that, until recently, when B10 money started going bonkers with the start of the BTN, NU probably would have been better off making.
We’re talking about fairly recent developments when it comes to monetizing academic prestige (the cash cow masters programs, full-pay internationals, big money from OOS students at the publics, and even the rise in inequality/rise in the top 1%, which really took off after 1980 leading to alumni giving that supercharged endowments).
LikeLike
Also, we’re not taking about adding Rice or taking Ivy League schools. We’re talking about adding schools that are in large part in big media markets/states with a lot of B10 alums and/or are big brand names themselves (in basketball, etc.) and thus bring a lot to the table already even when you don’t consider the benefits of creating a conference that has a third of the top research unis in the US (by multiple measures) and would numerically be better represented in the prestige industries and best business/law/med schools in the country than the Ivy League.
LikeLike
All these schools I mentioned are at least as compelling as the UMD/RU additions (and generally more so). Now, yes, you may say circumstances have changed, but I don’t believe they have changed that much. The B10 will soon get some crazy TV payout in part because UMD/RU brought in big markets. That would be true with my proposed schools as well. People are really underrating network effects here.
LikeLike
Richard,
Smart scheduling will be key, but I think they’ll do it using travel partners. It’s too hard to coordinate 5-10 sports’ schedules. Instead, maybe they can have the 2 CA teams travel together and play 2 schools (NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, IN/PU, MI/MSU, OSU/PSU, RU/UMD) before returning. The 2 schools split the costs, which should be a savings over flying separately if they are chartering. If they can also coordinate multiple sports, great. It’s less of an issue for the other 14 schools as they only make that huge trip once per team.
Mostly, I think it will be about picking days of the week and start times that make sense, and allowing plenty of time for rest and recovery. It’s going to suck for the CA schools, but they can mitigate the pain.
LikeLike
I can certainly see your logic Marc but I am not sure that Northwestern’s prestige has been negatively impacted by remaining in the B1G.
I do not think it has been negatively impacted, which is one of the many ways Richard’s hypothesis probably runs off the track.
LikeLike
Brian, we have computers now. And considering that I can make schedules for even 5-10 non-revenue sports with just an Excel spreadsheet, I really don’t think that coordinating all the non-revenue teams in a season for a school to fly out to LA on the same long weekend is as horribly complicated as you think.
LikeLike
It’s not the physical act of scheduling that’s tough, it’s having what works best for each sport also line up with who plays what sports, and when certain facilities are blocked out for other use, and what times are best for certain schools, and all those other factors. Baseball and softball have different needs than swimming or track. Hockey and wrestling and MBB and WBB and WVB don’t have the same needs.
LikeLike
Brian, I understand that some people may not have the computational power to be able to take all those factors in to account, but just because you don’t doesn’t mean the Big Ten can’t. Also, what are these “special needs” that you are pulling out of thin air? The B10 schools have already decided that this isn’t a big obstacle so they clearly don’t think the same way you do.
LikeLike
You’re the only one suggesting they schedule all of their teams to travel together and play everything in one trip. Nobody thinks scheduling is all that hard if you aren’t doing that.
It isn’t a lack of computational power, it’s that not everything aligns. Special needs are things like baseball can’t play in the north until March, other spring sports need to play before then.
LikeLike
I’m pretty certain the B10 can afford computers and programmers to take constraints like that in to consideration.
LikeLike
No computer can solve impossible constraints.
LikeLike
“Don’t play baseball in the north before March 1” isn’t an impossible constraint.
LikeLike
Having all teams travel together when some need to play in January/February and others in March is.
LikeLike
What spring sports (baseball is a spring sport) absolutely need to play in Jan and Feb but not March or later, Brian? Please name them.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting, Brian.
LikeLike
My final words on this.
Potential travel issues for USC and UCLA trying to send all the teams at the same time (and have the others do so to CA as well):
1. USC and UCLA don’t play the same sports (USC plays 2 UCLA doesn’t, UCLA plays 4 USC doesn’t)
2. The B10 offers M&W indoor track & field but the P12 doesn’t, so they’d need to leave the MPSF and join the B10 in those. That’s 2 more teams to travel long distance.
3. They need to find a conference for beach volleyball or go independent. The P12 offers it, but I assume that won’t be an option. NE is independent (only BVB team in B10). Both the Big West and WCC offer it and would be good homes, and I assume one of them will take the teams.
4. Post-season competition – B10 championships are scheduled based on the needs of each sport and spread in location; the B10 can’t control NCAA championship scheduling
5. Lost days because teams compete on very different days. I don’t think schools want athletes spending 3 times as long as needed on a road trip. The academic side of the schools would complain, and rightly so. The athletes would complain too.
6. Weather makes it tempting to play in CA early in the year, but you shouldn’t force just 2 schools to front load their home games and play lots of road games later.
7. Athlete recovery requires equipment, training routines, eating habits, etc. Hotel gyms are not sufficient for the purpose, and it would be a huge expense to bring everything with you.
8. Prep for the next competition starts almost immediately. Coaches need to game plan, players need to watch film and practice specific skills, staff need to clean and prepare equipment, etc. They have equipment and facilities for that at home.
Looking at the B10 sports USC and UCLA would play:
Fall:
* M&W cross country plays on Fridays at invitationals then B10 championship
* Football plays on Saturdays
* M soccer plays 6 days of the week (not Sat.) with 2 games per week
* W soccer mostly plays Su and Th
* W volleyball plays on W and then any of F-Su
Winter:
* M/W basketball play 7 days a week (Nov – Mar)
* W gymnastics plays any of F-M (Jan – Mar)
* M/W swimming & diving play any of W-Su (Oct – Mar)
* M/W indoor track & field plays on Th-Sat at invitationals then B10 championship (Jan – Mar)
Spring:
* Baseball plays 7 days a week but mostly F-Su (Feb – May) – mid-March start for home games
* Golf plays 6 days a week (F-W) for several days in a row at invitationals then B10 championship (Sep-Oct, Feb-May)
* W lacrosse plays 6 days per week (T-Su) (Feb-Apr)
* W rowing competes on weekends at invitationals then B10 championship (Mar-May)
* Softball plays mostly T and F-Su (Feb – May) – mid-March start for home games
* Tennis plays 6 days a week (T-Su) at invitationals and dual meets then B10 championship (Oct-Nov, Jan-May)
* M/W outdoor track & field plays on Th-Sat at invitationals then B10 championship (Mar – May)
Note – I based this all on when OSU’s teams play unless otherwise noted. Other schools may vary.
There are just too many teams with different needs to have lumping them all together make sense. Golf needs to play 3-4 days in a row. Football can’t wait for that. Basketball plays midweek games but many other winter sports don’t. Many sports play invitationals all over the country, so the B10 can’t control the scheduling and the locations are limited.
A much more feasible plan is for USC and UCLA’s teams for the same sport to travel together when it makes sense and play 2 road games in one trip (or one weekend series in baseball).
LikeLike
Do most student athletes even go to class anymore or do they take classes online?
If, as I suspect, most take online classes, it would be cool if the B1G constructed a training facility/dormitory/classrooms for visiting teams playing back to back events in SoCal.
Heck, the baseball teams could stay in SoCal from January to mid-March. There are two MLB parks and two minor league parks in So Cal that aren’t used until April. B1G teams could play other great SoCal baseball programs like Irvine, Long Beach, Fullerton, and Pepperdine in pre-conference series. It would be a great recruiting tool for the baseball programs: great falls in the Mid West during football season and SoCal during the worst part of winter, along with making more friends/contacts from other schools. They might even attract more fans to those games from B1G Snow birds coming down to partake in a spring training/college setting.
I’m sure it would cost a decent amount of money and there would be some logistical hurdles to overcome, but take a million or two out of every school’s share the first & second year of the new TV contract and no one would even notice.
LikeLike
Some good points but impact on on indoor track is negligible. No conference schedule just a championship meet so just one longer flight.
LikeLike
Alan,
I’m sure many take at least some online courses (esp. lately), but there are majors that have required in-person courses (labs, etc.). Non-revenue sport athletes also tend to take more credit hours than the revenue sport athletes. Online courses taken at home are a little different from doing it on the road, especially if any group work is involved and/or you’re in a different time zone. Some online courses are synchronous, so being off by 3 hours might be difficult.
B10 teams play weeks of games down south now, but they are (mostly) over long weekends and the teams move around. They could play in CA instead, but I assume the travel is more expensive. Every school could build a visitor’s dorm with study facilities to enable road trips. But the bigger problem to me is the physical therapy/medical treatment/sports training that players need. And NCAA rules may have something to say about keeping a student off campus that long.
LikeLike
Most of these sports don’t have anything but end of the season competition. Volleyball and basketball are the only ones that would have mid-week games needed. Tennis, baseball, softball and soccer can play on weekends. Its just not as big a deal as it would appear. Hawaii does it.
LikeLike
I know my son has had athletes in his in person classes at Auburn. And at least prior to the pandemic, schools made big efforts to make sure their athletes were in class. They even had people checking attendance, in addition to the note takers, tutors, academic advisors, etc. I know daughters of friends who have been tutors and note takers at a P5 school. The academic support system is pretty massive.
LikeLike
bullet,
Hawaii sends all of their sports teams on one plane together (all 6 teams play @Cal State the same weekend) for every road trip all year long? And the visitors to HI also do that? I find that hard to believe.
LikeLike
SEC standing pat.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, conferences say that every round of expansion. They mean it, too, right up until they see a good opportunity to make more money.
In this case they probably do mean it, because they know ND is unlikely to join them and nobody else makes them more money. It suits the SEC for the ACC to stay whole and paid less than them. It keeps FSU, Miami and Clemson out of their hair and likely keeps UNC away from the B10. I think the SEC would happily keep the 2025 alignment forever.
LikeLike
With GOR the math for ACC schools apparently doesn’t work.
Big XII what do they offer that excites SEC?
PAC-12 if Arizona and New Mexico swapped places I could see them but they don’t offer money to go that far out of footprint.
Being content at 16 makes a lot of sense
LikeLike
“Being content at 16 makes a lot of sense”
For both B1G and SEC.
LikeLike
I think the B10 is content at 16 with ND staying independent, but would prefer 18 with ND on board.
LikeLike
@Brian
Maybe it’s different because Delaney isn’t in charge now, but Delaney made every single move in order to move the Big Ten towards accomodating UNC.
Grabbing Maryland and Rutgers to make the Big Ten an East Coast conference -> adding JHU to add lacrosse (men/women).
Everything lines up to make it easy for UVA/UNC to transition into the Big Ten, all their sports are taken care of, etc.
UNC is important even if it financially is a wash. The demographic issue (~20 million in NC+VA by mid-2030s) is too important to let go.
Of course, if the SEC spurns Clemson/FSU then maybe UVA/UNC stay pat. But if Clemson/FSU agitate for money, that could be an opening at UVA.
UVA and UNC have the highest expenses in the ACC because they’re comprehensive programs; they need the revenue to keep pace.
LikeLike
z33k,
Delany loves UNC, but I don’t think that’s ever been a definitive goal. The B10 has taken targets of opportunity that helped with markets and demographics, or brands.
They went east because it was closest and easiest, with PSU as a perfect bridge. They have also kept hoping to get ND, so eastern ties seemed extra useful.
But next they took NE because the brand was available. That clearly had nothing to do with UNC.
Then came the chase for markets for BTN, which brought DC and NYC. JHU was a way to get UMD on board, not a way to appease UNC. UNC and UMD just happen to be culturally similar.
Then again the B10 went off script, because USC and UCLA became available. CA offers 40M people, dwarfing what VA + NC would bring. And there’s no question of them preferring the SEC.
I’m sure the B10 would’ve like to get to cleanly to UNC on paper back in the 90s, but I don’t think they want it enough to grow to 20+ unless economics force it. Circumstances have dictated otherwise.
LikeLike
I agree to an extent Brian, but I’d just be surprised if the Big Ten or SEC passes on UNC if they basically tell both conferences that they’re willing to move.
You can find a way to make the numbers work.
LikeLike
z33k,
Both The B10 and SEC would agree if UNC tells them they are definitely leaving the ACC, and either you take me or they do. Neither one wants to lose that battle. But just because you can find a way to make the numbers work doesn’t mean you’d prefer to have to find that way.
Beyond being forced, I’m not sure either one is as gung ho for more expansion as fans want. That could easily change in a decade, and obviously this depends on the estimated value of UNC to each league (something I haven’t seen estimated). I think UNC would be roughly revenue neutral at best in the current environment. The only active moneymaker left is ND.
But if you’re already at $100M per school plus you have an expanded CFP and are making more from hoops, I don’t know that either conference wants to kill off the ACC. They’d rather find a way to appease the other schools with just enough money to compete. There are advantages to keeping the middle 3 conferences active and competitive.
Right now, Clemson spends more on football than OSU does despite the financial gap. As long as they can stay close, there are diminishing returns to spending more.
LikeLike
Delaney made every single move in order to move the Big Ten towards accommodating UNC. Grabbing Maryland and Rutgers to make the Big Ten an East Coast conference -> adding JHU to add lacrosse (men/women).
Delany surely never imagined USC/UCLA would leave the Pac-12, so that was never in an option in his mind. I believe he once said that every move needs to make sense on its own, and not be dependent on some other school saying yes years into the future.
LikeLike
“I don’t believe you”.gif
Watch what they do, not what they say.
LikeLike
It’s an easy thing to say when there are no good expansion options on the board anyway.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-playoff-ratings-bcs/
A link to all the BCS and CFP TV ratings. Interregional games do much better than single region games, and SEC-only games do even worse generally (in part because they’re repeats?). Good evidence of how valuable the Rose Bowl is.
LikeLike
SEC (and eventually Big Ten) saying they’ll stay at 16 means nothing to me.
Early 2030s is when we see what happens with the ACC; there’s going to be a ton of back-channel communications before then, but we all can see the writing on the wall that NC+VA is a huge prize for either conference.
And of course, FSU and Clemson are going to be extremely unhappy with their payouts, so that situation will be volatile even if they don’t have SEC invites waiting.
LikeLike
Article from ESPN on the USC/UCLA move to the Big Ten
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34217498/inside-stunning-usc-ucla-move-big-ten-chaos-followed
The most interesting part (at least to me) is that it answers a question I (and I assume others) have been wondering ever since the story broke; how the hell did UCLA convince the UC BoR to sign off on a move that so clearly damaged Cal?
The answer it turns out is that they didn’t need to.
[A] spokesperson for the University of California Office of the President told ESPN in an email. “… decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level. There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”
Also of note is that after Oklahoma and Texas announced their were leaving for the SEC, the ACC actually considered the financial viability of adding USC.
“I don’t think coast to coast was an appetite that the presidents wanted. I think that perspective would have changed if they had known.”
LikeLike
Seems like UCLA had a friendly UC President (use to be OSU’s President) who was more concerned with saving UCLA than about what happens to Cal.
It kind of makes sense; UCLA clearly needed the money and if both flagship UCs stay in the Pac, they both struggle financially instead of just one.
LikeLike
Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, and USC, have all made lucrative conference switches that were previously thought impossible for similar reasons. At this point, I think we have to assume that any school can surmount these obstacles if it makes enough sense financially.
LikeLike
Sorry, that’s Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, and UCLA.
LikeLike
Another reason to stay at 16 and certainly not expand beyond 20 is the power dynamic. The current (and even more so the historic) group of B1G schools is pretty unified in thinking and action. It is conceivable that a superconference of 24 could result in the newbies aligning and making decisions that run counter to the existing master plan and could upset the entire apple cart. Whether or not it’s likely, the possibility is something to be avoided. I’d imagine similar “who absorbs whom” conversations have been had early in merger talks between the Big 12, Pac and ACC.
LikeLike
@statdoc – You make a super-important and very underrated point. The Big Ten (or SEC, for that matter) don’t want new schools to form a separate voting bloc. Instead, they want new schools to be fully-integrated into the leagues. Larger expansions make integrations much harder and could create those separate voting blocs. Hence, it’s not an accident that expansion has generally been incremental for the leagues that control their own destinies like the Big Ten and SEC. (Now, if a league is in survival mode like the Big 12 last year, there’s little choice outside of adding a whole bloc of schools at one time.)
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s fair. Forming an alternate Ivy League likely will have to take decades.
LikeLike
Great points. That’s why it is so important to bring on like minded institutions. The difficulty is where there are significant cultural differences in alums and fan bases that might influence leadership thinking. They need to be very careful when adding schools
LikeLike
The problem that the ACC has outside of absolute TV revenue numbers is just that it’s difficult to devise a way to split the pie unequally to make the “appealing members” whole.
If you devise a formula based on just football success, well how does that help UVA or UNC, both of which would probably be top Big Ten targets.
Just hard to see how a formula would work that drives revenue to say FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Miami, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Duke since that’s a pretty diverse set of schools in terms of athletics success in the different sports. Those 8 are pretty clearly the ones that are more likely to have landing spots as opposed to the other 6, but just hard to come up with a formula that would drive revenue to those.
And once you start talking about unequal revenue sharing, everyone’s going to be checking out their external options in the 2030s.
LikeLike
z33k,
I agree, but the problem is slightly more tractable than that. You only really need to keep UNC happy, maybe Clemson, FSU, and Miami. UVA isn’t leaving without UNC. Neither is Duke. VT and GT aren’t instigators either, they’re partner schools. UNC is the prize the B10 and SEC most want, and they are complaining the least of brand name schools.
The 3 football brands want out, but who wants them and can pay them significantly more? The B12 would take them, but I don’t see that changing things financially. The B10 doesn’t want them. The SEC doesn’t need them, and it’s not clear they would raise the payout for the SEC. Would they bother to expand with them for no gain? Unless something structurally changes to make them more valuable to the SEC, I just don’t see an option for them in the current environment.
I think the ACC’s concern should be a bifurcation, with the top 8 or so leaving the rest. Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVA and VT (+ND non-FB) would be a viable power base and earn more money. BC, WF, Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville probably aren’t earning their keep (maybe UL is). Those 9 could then talk to the top 6 of the P12 about a partnership, or the top of the B12.
LikeLike
Penn State left Pitt behind (at least in football)
Nebraska left Oklahoma behind
Texas A&M left Texas behind
Oklahoma left Oklahoma St behind
There are no partner schools, just cases of aligned interests.
I think we aren’t going to see much news until the Pac-12 or -10 and B1G conclude their TV negotiations. That will tell us a lot about incentives going forward. This isn’t conferences drafting schools, these are business decisions that all sides would be foolish to rush without better information about the landscape of the next 10-15 years.
LikeLike
Stew,
When I say VT and GT are partner schools, I mean they are the 16th, 18th, or 20th school. The school you add to complete the move, like RU was for UMD.
That said, the VA government forced UVA to get VT into the ACC, so I think they might protect UVA from VT leaving first. I also think the NC government might protect NCSU.
As for Duke and UVA, they don’t have enough desire to leave the ACC to make it worth it to them to leave UNC (not that either would be offered without UNC). UNC is the ACC’s linchpin. If they stay, only the football brands would consider leaving. And I think those brands may struggle to get an offer.
LikeLike
Penn State left Pitt behind (at least in football)
Nebraska left Oklahoma behind
Texas A&M left Texas behind
Oklahoma left Oklahoma St behind
There were predisposing factors on each of those moves.
Pitt had joined the newly-formed Big East with Penn State not getting an invite.
Nebraska left the Big XII for the Big Ten because, at that time, it appeared half the Big XII was headed to the Pac-12.
Texas A&M left Texas behind because of the Longhorn Network.
Oklahoma is the archrival of Texas, not OK State.
LikeLike
LHN had nothing to do with A&M’s move. They just got to do the move they had wanted, but didn’t have the political cover to do since 1989. LHN was just used to stir up the easily stirred up fan base. Their president Loftin said he decided to move when Nebraska did. He was just waiting for the right time.
LikeLike
“LHN had nothing to do with A&M’s move.”
Bullet, I was on the faculty of Texas A&M at the time that all of this transpired. The LHN was far and away the foremost reason that A&M went to the SEC. The high school football games were the last straw. Just stop, you don’t understand the issue at all.
LikeLike
My point was that each university is acting in its individual self-interest. At times state legislatures or executives will lean heavily (formation of Big 12, Va Tech to the ACC), but everyone is acting in their own interests.
Before conference realignment it was Penn State insisting on traditional rivals agreeing to an unequal number of home games in a contract – depending on which reports you believed 6 out of 10 or 2 out of 3.
Before that it was the CFA suing the NCAA over TV contracts – we don’t see regional Div III games on ABC any more, but that did used to be a thing.
It has always been about money and how it gets divvied up.
LikeLike
Just hard to see how a formula would work that drives revenue to say FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Miami, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Duke… Those 8 are pretty clearly the ones that are more likely to have landing spots as opposed to the other 6…
More likely, but still not likely. I suspect no more than half of them would. But I agree, it is hard to imagine a world where UNC agrees to let Clemson make more.;
LikeLike
I said this elsewhere, but the easy place to start is with CFP and NCAA tourney money. Let those who earn it keep a larger chunk. The let’s the hoops brands benefit their way, and Clemson in their way. And they can all tell FSU and Miami to stop whining and start winning more if they want to earn more.
LikeLike
So I have been thinking about the ACC GOR question. Everyone seems to be assuming that ESPN holds all the cards, but I have also read in multiple places that the GOR is cancelled if the ACC is dissolved as a conference. There are 15 ACC members including ND. I have looked around but cannot seem to find a copy of the ACC bylaws, so for now I am going to assume that the conference can be dissolved by a majority vote of the members. That would be eight schools. So the question becomes, are there eight ACC members who would be sufficiently “wanted” by the SEC and/or B10?
Tier 1 (Definitely wanted by both): ND
Tier 2 (Likely wanted by one or both): UNC, UVA, MIAMI, CLEM, FSU)
Tier 3 (Someone has to take at least 2): DUKE, GT, VT, NCST, SYR, PITT, UL, BC, WF
Seems to me, the SEC and B10 could cut a deal here to split up the ACC if they wanted to. If you treat UNC/Duke as a pair, I think both the B10 and SEC would be willing to take them together. At least one would. That gets you to seven schools voting to kill the ACC. Need one more. Would the SEC take either NCST or VT in lieu of UNC or UVA? I don’t think the B10 would. Would the B10 take SYR to help with the NYC media market? Or GT to get a foothold in Atlanta? Would the SEC want PITT? Would the B10 be willing to take BC just to get a deal done if it ended up with ND, UNC/DUKE and UVA? I have to think there’s a deal here in which both the SEC and B10 walk away as winners.
LikeLike
“Tier 2 (Likely wanted by one or both): UNC, UVA, MIAMI, CLEM, FSU)”
Nonconcur on Miami. My hunch is that neither the SEC nor the Big Ten would want them.
LikeLike
I’d disagree there. IMHO, Miami has been one of the more underrated schools in realignment scenarios. While they have a fairweather fan base, they’re still one of the best TV draws in college football when they’re competitive. South Florida is arguably pound-for-pound the single best football recruiting territory in the country. Academically, Miami is generally seen as one of the schools next in line to get into the AAU – they score higher on a lot of the objective research funding factors that the AAU reviews than a fair number of current AAU members (AKA if the AAU were just starting from scratch today, Miami would very likely be in that group).
If I’m running the Big Ten and ACC schools are available, then I absolutely would take Miami. The State of Florida is simply too important to allow the SEC to control it completely like it now effectively does with the State of Texas.
Now, the problem is that I don’t think ACC schools are going to be realistically available for the next decade. The GOR terms are very purposely effectively impossible to get out of outside of the ACC accepting a massive amount of money as a buyout (which the ACC can choose to accept or reject in its absolute discretion, even if it might look unreasonable) or a more drastic scenario of dissolution as noted (which is a “solution” that always seems to get brought up whenever there’s realignment as a way for defecting schools to avoid exit fees or other penalties but in practicality is totally unrealistic).
LikeLike
Seems to me, the SEC and B10 could cut a deal here to split up the ACC if they wanted to.
Let’s say the ACC can be disbanded by a majority, with Notre Dame eligible to vote despite not being a full member. Thus, disbanding requires eight yes votes. I cannot tell you precisely which teams the SEC and B1G would take, but it is probably not eight of them.
Imagine assigning a probability to each team, where only ND gets 1.0. The sum of the probabilities will be almost certainly less than eight.
LikeLike
Even if the ACC GOR expired tomorrow and the conference dissolved it is very unlikely there 8 teams that make the B1G and SEC enough money to add now. Maybe additional consolidation, NIL, CFB playoff expansion, etc. change things, but maybe not if the break even number is $80-100M per year.
LikeLike
MrWoodson,
The B10 and SEC benefit from the ACC schools being stuck and falling behind financially. It makes the desirable ones even more likely to leave the ACC, and it weakens them as on the field competition.
Why would they get permanently stuck with schools they don’t want just to help the ACC break the GOR? It ends in 2036 anyway. The B10 spent 18 years at 11 teams despite not having a CCG. They can easily wait until 2036 to add schools they want.
Second, I doubt the lawyers left it that easy to escape. The GOR can’t be changed unless everyone agrees. Dissolving a conference probably takes at least a supermajority vote (75%), especially when it is a transparent tactic to break a legal contract. Frankly, ESPN would probably sue them for it.
LikeLike
New development.
LikeLike
Cal’s athletic department supports 30 sports teams and the Bears run an annual deficit of $25 million which is funded from the central campus? This is wacko.
LikeLike
I have always understood that the majority of FBS athletic departments lose money, and thus are subsidized to some degree by the university general funds.
LikeLike
“I have always understood that the majority of FBS athletic departments lose money, and thus are subsidized to some degree by the university general funds.”
The schools that use general funds to support the athletic departments don’t field teams in 30 sports.
LikeLike
All but about 20 schools lost money until the vast rise in TV money a dozen years ago. Now almost all the P5 make money. All the G5 lose money.
LikeLike
Colin,
https://www.dailycal.org/2018/01/17/central-campus-take-chunk-cal-athletics-debt/
Despite the steps, UC Berkeley and the athletic department may need a century to pay off the debt. The annual payments will be $18 million per year until 2032 before leaping to $26 million per year. The peak will arrive in 2039 at $37 million per year, and Cal’s loan extends to 2112, according to Bloomberg.
Yes, they run a big deficit. But there is one caveat. The AD was forced to take on something like $450M in debt to earthquake-proof and renovate the football stadium, with the school then deciding to pay about half of it. But that debt service is still huge and most/all of their deficit. They looked at building a new stadium that wasn’t directly on top of the fault line, but the environmentalists wouldn’t allow it.
LikeLike
Cal should just have demolished that stadium and barnstormed across CA. Their alums are from and at all parts of CA anyway.
LikeLike
I know you’re kidding, but 5 home games are required by rule for those who don’t know (I’ve seen it proposed as the solution to GORs).
LikeLike
Pretty much any other alternative would have made more sense. They could have called the Oakland Coliseum home (and I know what decrepit condition it’s in) and that would have been a smarter decision.
LikeLike
So, if UCLA is not allowed to go without Cal, what does the B1G do?
(1) Sit with 15 teams (USC)
(2) Go to 17 (USC + UCLA + Cal)
(3) Replace UCLA with ???
LikeLike
Steven,
First, discussing it doesn’t mean blocking it. A closed session is required for any discussion about possible litigation. They may fear being sued, not wanting to sue.
A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President said the regents had no authority to prevent UCLA’s move, which became official June 30:
“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”
If UCLA couldn’t leave Cal behind legally, then:
1. USC wanted UCLA to come along. Would they leave without them? If not, then you go to 18 and add the Bay Area schools as well.
2. Replace Stanford and Cal with UW and UO in that scenario.
3. Would USC leave with Stanford as a partner? If so, then you go to 16 with them.
4. Replace Stanford with UW in that scenario.
5. Replace Stanford with UO in that scenario.
6. I highly doubt you stay at 15, but there are no other good partners available until the ACC GOR is done.
LikeLike
If I am UCLA and the UC Regents seem ready to block my move, I immediately announce the secondary sports that will be immediately eliminated, since UCLA cannot afford them. If there are any of those sports that are of particular interest to any of the Regents, that sport goes first. (Eg kid of Regent hoping to go to UCLA to play tennis. Drop tennis immediately.)
Lets see how the UC Regents react when every who backs tennis, golf, swimming, etc. at UCLA screams to the Governor and local politicians.
At the same time, the Regents should for UC to drop ten or so sports to deal with its financial issues.
LikeLike
“If I am UCLA and the UC Regents seem ready to block my move . . .”
I simply don’t believe this is much of an issue. The UC Regents represent ten schools and the only one affected is Cal. You could make a reasonable case that this opens the door for more UC colleges to join the Pac-12. Plus as we saw in an earlier post, it appears the UC Regents are uninvolved with athletic matters.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2022/07/11.aspx
SBJ talking about the B10 TV negotiations.
This week is shaping up to be a big one for the Big Ten’s media rights negotiations as companies will submit new bids for at least two available packages early in the week.
…
The more likely scenario has the media companies’ bids close enough that the conference decides to take bidding to another round. This would likely push a deal into August.
…
Last week’s announcement caused several media companies, including ESPN and NBC, to become more aggressive in the bidding. CBS and Amazon have continued to be active in these negotiations, while Warner Bros. Discovery remained on the sidelines.
I suppose this UC BoR meeting could mess things up a bit. Will the companies bid assuming UCLA can come, but also give a number for if they don’t? Will the B10 offer up other potential #16s?
LikeLike
Pretty certain the UC BoR won’t stop UCLA.
Cal bond holders a different matter. But the easy solution is adding Cal and Stanford as well. The addition would still be additive.
LikeLike
https://utah.rivals.com/news/sources-remaining-pac-12-schools-expected-to-announce-sticking-together
The P12 remainder are planning to announce that they will stick together.
Will they sign a lengthy, binding GOR to that effect? What if the UC regents end up “forcing” the B10 to invite Cal and Stanford as well? How angry would the remaining 8 be then?
LikeLike
Will they sign a lengthy, binding GOR to that effect?
Without that, no commitment means much. I would be very surprised if they commit to 20 years like the ACC did. Ten at the outside (and maybe not even that), which is about when the ACC teams should start to shake loose.
LikeLike
And the article itself says at the end that there are likely bigger alignment changes coming, so any solidarity moment would just be a “moment.”
LikeLike
Not sure why it matters how angry the remaining 8 would be. They know they would do the exact same thing if given the opportunity.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter. I was just curious how they’d react to everyone saying they’d stick together, then Cal immediately escaping through a legal maneuver that decimates the P12.
And what if Cal signed a new GOR and then won a legal battle to wrangle themselves a B10 invitation? They then don’t get invited because they screwed themselves?
LikeLike
Good article on ESPN and Fox and the Big Ten
Fox and ESPN are not “grandmasters calling the shots behind the scenes”; they are essential but ultimately replaceable parts in the movement of money from consumers to the entities that provide the content those consumers want.
[snip]
perhaps the most essential role Fox and ESPN play for universities is taking the blame as the latter make more money than ever.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-espn-plays-kingmaker-as-pac
The P12’s fate is in the hands of ESPN right now.
Said Thompson, “ESPN needs the Pac-12 more than anybody and will likely pay more than anyone else. They like West Coast windows for football. They like basketball inventory and they might actually be able to make something out of the Pac-12 Networks. They also need content for ESPN+.”
…
* Thompson negotiated dozens of these kinds of deals with a variety of conferences in his career. He said that ESPN may decide to make a shrewd offer to the Pac-12, knowing that it if it’s rejected, the conference is likely to fall apart and have a handful of members end up with the Big 12.
“ESPN,” he said, “can then go after those rights buoyed by the fact that they have $$$ in their pocket that they didn’t pay the Pac 12.”
* The whole Pac-12 + ACC alliance makes Thompson leery. He believes the concept was hatched as a way to funnel some extra dollars to ACC members who have grown restless with the terms of the conference’s current media rights deal.
Maybe the DOJ should be looking into ESPN rather than the PGA.
LikeLike
Thompson seems to be the only guy Canzano quotes on the record about these issues. He is obviously qualified and could be entirely right, but still, he is only one opinion.
LikeLike
Maybe the DOJ should be looking into ESPN rather than the PGA.
I believe the Pac-12’s main problem is that Fox isn’t bidding. Not ESPN’s fault, unless they colluded with Fox to suppress demand (unlikely). But I would think other networks and streamers need football too, so there is a limit to how low ESPN can go.
LikeLike
Some fans (not me) would argue that they have colluded to do just that by moving the most valuable schools out of the B12 and P12 and into other conferences they have the rights to (B10 and SEC). And they think ESPN is trying to do it again from the ACC to the SEC. Likewise with prior moves to stabilize the B12 (no cut after losing NE and CU, overpaid LHN), and other alleged interference in realignment.
LikeLike
If the money is there (not clear that it is if the only decent offer is an ESPN low-ball), Pac-12 can probably agree to a 10 year GOR at most.
10 years gets the Pac-12 to mid-2034.
The 2032-2033 window is when the next window for re-alignment opens with the ACC as the focus. SEC added Oklahoma/Texas around 4 years before their exit.
I expect the Big Ten and SEC to approach UNC around 4-5 years before the 2036 GOR/TV deal expiration.
Any Pac-12 schools (Oregon/Washington/Stanford) hoping to grab an invite to the Big Ten would probably hope for something to open up in that window with the ACC that would allow them to come up with a future plan beyond 2034.
And it gives them enough time to basically walk away or hold out on the Pac-12 past 2034 if needed.
LikeLike
Potential realignment is only half the problem. I suspect no Pac-12 school wants to risk being locked into a grossly under-market 20-year deal, as the ACC is.
LikeLike
If the California board of regents’ forces UCLA to stay in the Pac (barring a surprise acceptance by Notre Dame) the next up should be either Washington, Oregon, or Stanford. USC will stay in the B1G without UCLA if that is a UC decision. Most likely nothing will come of the meeting and UCLA will still join.
LikeLike
The BOR don’t have the authority to do that. UCLA will go to the B1G.
LikeLike
From that Canzano article I linked above:
His expert notes that boards often cite “litigation” as an easy workaround to sunshine laws. All it means is they want to meet privately, so they have already decided before any public meeting.
Baumgartner, who served as the vice chair of the state of Washington’s Senate Higher Education Committee said he doubts Cal would have a legal case if the Regents approve UCLA’s move.
“However, the private bond holders of Cal University debt might have a legal case if the UCLA decision effects their credit worthiness and/or bond value,” he said. “Here in Washington, we had several instances of our Supreme Court prohibiting policy changes due to impact on bond holders.”
LikeLike
Nope, the next step is adding Stanford and Cal along with USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
The more fun version is Stanford instead of UCLA. Get both markets and let Cal still suffer, plus having UCLA furious with them.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34232878/texas-tech-plans-200m-football-stadium-facilities-project
Just a reminder as we hear how underpaid and struggling the ACC, B12 and P12 are or will be. TT is ready to spend $200M on a football facility. I think those schools will be able to keep competing just fine.
LikeLike
TT is ready to spend $200M on a football facility
Tech is going to ask their boosters to put up 200 million for a building while simultaneously asking them to fund collectives for NIL deals. That’s a recipe for underfunding both.
LikeLike
What UCLA is saying about travel concerns.
It sounds like chartered flights and travel partners. Few to no road noon games is easy enough (can’t control CFB as much). Lots of Th/Sat or F/Sun type hoops road trips to a pair of schools.
Eastern fans complain about daylight CFB games, especially at noon, but western fans don’t want home night games. They’ll probably get their wish as B10 fans don’t want 10:30pm ET kickoffs either. But I picture plenty of hoops games at night in CA as ESPN (or FS1 or whomever) wants value in their late window.
LikeLike
Few to no road noon games is easy enough (can’t control CFB as much).
I suspect the Big Ten has enough market power to demand that USC and UCLA will never play at noon ET. That’s a limitation the networks could probably live with. But I think the rest of the Big Ten will have to accept some late games in California.
LikeLike
The B10 can get anything they want for the right price. If Fox wants USC @ OSU as their big noon game, the B10 will have to take less money to have the right to say no to that. I doubt Fox would often want to do it, knowing the western fans are hard to get at 9 am, but it might sometimes be the best option. Likewise, sometimes the eastern teams will play at 10:30.
LikeLike
I suspect the Big Ten has enough market power to demand that USC and UCLA will never play at noon ET.
Concurring with Brian, its been reported that the 330 ET and the prime time packages are what the Big Ten is selling. I would be absolutely shocked if FOX would be ok with not having USC and UCLA on Big Noon.
LikeLike
Maybe I am, not following you, but I would be shocked if USC vs. Ohio State was a noon game. Except for rivalry week, the best games are almost never at noon.
LikeLike
Fox has been putting a bunch of their big time games at noon. Likely so they don’t have to compete with the best SEC game in the afternoon and best ABC game in primetime.
I believe ratings have been good for their strategy.
But with changes in league/broadcaster lineups coming, we’ll see what changes in the future.
LikeLike
Maybe I am, not following you, but I would be shocked if USC vs. Ohio State was a noon game
Fox (reportedly) has bought half of the Big Ten’s games including the 12 ET package and some content for FS1. My assumption is the FOX deal included the first “pick” of games (the actual mechanics for picking may vary) for at least half of the weeks in the season. NBC/CBS/ESPN are bidding for the 330 ET and prime time games and maybe some additional cable/streaming content. My guess is games like MI/OSU and OSU/USC will be snapped up pretty quickly by FOX.
LikeLike
Marc,
That used to be the case, but with so much primetime competition Fox has moved their biggest games to noon. It gets the lead in from the pre-game show and has been getting big ratings for them – better than 8pm. Noon is Fox’s premier CFB window.
Fox noon games by week last season:
1. PSU/WI
2. UO/OSU*
3. NE/OU
4. ND/WI*
5. MI/WI
6. UMD/OSU
7. OkSU/UT
8. NW/MI
9. MI/MSU*
10. OSU/NE*
11. OU/Baylor
12. ISU/OU
13. OSU/MI*
* – highest rated game that week
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2021/fox-wins-college-football-ratings-war-1234647865/
Fox Sports took a risk in 2019 by going all-in on its noon ET college football window on Saturdays. Fox moved its top matchups from primetime to noon, a move industry experts questioned at the time. Yet the strategy is paying off.
Because the 2020 season was truncated by COVID, 2019 provides the best season-over-season comparison. Through Week 9, Fox’s Big Noon Saturday games are up 17% (5,190,000 vs. 4,425,000).
Thus far in 2021, Big Noon holds an average television rating of 2.92, tied with ABC’s primetime college football broadcasts. CBS in the afternoon has averaged 2.66.
As a result, Big Noon Saturday could finish the season as the top-rated college football window across all networks, despite airing in a busy time slot that is still morning for half of the country.
LikeLike
Why would that be a problem in football? College kids can’t start at 9am? They are going to fly in the day before.
The only real travel issues are mid-week games in basketball and volleyball.
LikeLike
The game-day routine for a football team starts many hours before kickoff.
LikeLike
If the B10 is smart, they’d fly the Midwestern/Eastern teams out to LA for 2 games over a long weekend and send the LA teams on (extended) road trip swings through old B10 country.
I can’t imagine the folks who are in charge of this stuff are braindead.
LikeLike
bullet,
The main problem is for the fans, not the players. Because no, most college students don’t get up by 9am on Saturdays. And many other fans are still focused on breakfast and/or their kids at 9 am. It also eliminates the concept of tailgating for most people (it’s important to some). Western fans are more finicky about games (no 9 am, no 8 pm) than others.
LikeLike
https://chapelboro.com/sports/optimistic-kevin-guskiewicz-talks-unc-and-conference-realignment
UNC’s chancellor is optimistic about their TV deal.
“People know the ACC is somewhat hamstrung, and in perhaps a weakened position because of the media contract that we’re being held to until 2036,” Guskiewicz said. “So that’s what’s leading to a lot of the speculation… I would say that I’m committed, [athletic director] Bubba Cunningham is committed to maintaining a strong ACC presence. And they’re doing everything possible to improve our contract so that we can remain competitive with schools that are in these other conferences.”
…
Nevertheless, Guskiewicz said he remains hopeful UNC and the league could work out a new deal.
“I’m optimistic we’re gonna get a better contract,” he said. “I think ESPN recognizes the importance of a strong ACC, which it really is. It’s an incredibly strong conference. One thing that I’m proud of as chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill is the ACC is… well-known in excellence in academics and in athletics. I think we’ve proven that, and I think this is the right fit for Carolina.”
LikeLike
I’m sure they’ll turn over every rock in the search for additional revenue.
But they did run a feasibility study on the possibility of adding USC (saw that referenced recently) and that seems like it’d be the biggest needle mover if Texas/OU and ND are off the table.
Just not sure how they square that circle.
They’re probably looking at every possibility with ESPN for the Pac-12, whether they could add Washington/Oregon (or more) as well as possibilities involving the ACC Network becoming a shared conference network.
Just not obvious what they can do that would generate 9 figures worth of revenue annually to add for the current 14 football schools if they try to avoid unequal splits of revenue.
I’m sure we’ll see something but other than an expanded playoff (which isn’t coming for 4 more years now), it’s hard to see where revenue comes from…
LikeLike
Since the ACC somewhat perceives itself as an academic equivalent of the B1G (albeit with more private institutions, smaller state flagships and a lesser emphasis on graduate research), why not invite Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon to establish a western flank and rename the league the “Coast Conference”? (A bit dumb, to be sure, but…)
Also note this from a Twitter re the Big 12: ESPN has offered to convert the Longhorn Network into the Big 12 Network, with an initial seven-year contract (which presumably would increase in value were Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah to join). But there’s a catch: the Big 12 would have to let Oklahoma and Texas join the SEC in 2024 (not ’25) without charging any exit fee. That would mean the B1G and SEC would enlarge to 16 members at the same time. Since I’ve long maintained the Big 12 needs its own network, I’d do it. Would you?
LikeLike
They don’t even have to change the ACC name really, just go with American Coastal Conference instead of Atlantic; keep the ACC stylization.
I can see how Washington/Oregon and Cal/Stanford would work for the ACC financially if there’s enough carriage in California from Cal/Stanford. Otherwise maybe just Washington/Oregon if there’s not enough cable $ involved under ESPN’s projections.
But the problem is just how much $ are we talking. Is it worth adding those 4 schools if the total pot goes up by say $200 million a year? After you give them their cuts ($35 million x4), that leaves $60 million for the ACC schools, or another $4 million a year.
Is that worth the hassle of expansion and knowing some of them would leap to the Big Ten if ND called?
Any big helps, but the extra travel might take away a lot of those gains. Same applies to the Pac-12 schools; is it worth it for any of them to join a cross-country group when they might get similar enough money after accounting for travel costs.
Joining the Big Ten/SEC makes sense given the gigantic financial difference, but it’s not clear there’s the same financial difference for other groups of schools.
As far as the Big 12 goes, I don’t see why ESPN would do that.
ESPN took the Big 12’s remaining 8 schools’ third tier rights for $40 million a year to put on ESPN+.
I don’t think ESPN wants to create a network for the next iteration of the Big 12, it just sounds like a bad idea financially given the lack of markets controlled by the conference; there’s just not enough markets where it’d get local carriage rates to make it worthwhile as opposed to just taking say $50-60 million a year to put it on ESPN+.
And there’d be viewership issues; maybe ESPN does give them enough money to let Texas/OU walk but I’m skeptical until I see numbers. Big 12 would probably want like $100 million to let them out a year early. ESPN doesn’t give away money like that, nobody does.
LikeLike
I don’t think ESPN wants to create a network for the next iteration of the Big 12, it just sounds like a bad idea financially given the lack of markets controlled by the conference; there’s just not enough markets where it’d get local carriage rates to make it worthwhile…
Like all unsourced realignment rumors, I trade this one at a deep discount. With that said, the way this was phrased is significant: to convert the Longhorn Network to the Big XII Network — not the same thing as creating a new network from scratch. Presumably, you start out with carriage everywhere in Texas, which is pretty good even if you never get anything else. All of the infrastructure is in place, and doesn’t have to be recreated.
Is it worth enough money for the Big XII to let TX/OU go a year early? There I am skeptical, but dumber ideas have been tried.
LikeLike
Most conference network content is more akin to the Euro league content that floods streaming today. Niche content with a small be interested audience.
LikeLike
I think ESPN would rather just fold the Pac network if they get it and put the content on ESPN+ which they are trying to build. Conference networks are a slowly dying model.
LikeLike
Since the ACC somewhat perceives itself as an academic equivalent of the B1G (albeit with more private institutions, smaller state flagships and a lesser emphasis on graduate research), why not invite Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon to establish a western flank and rename the league the “Coast Conference”?
The world keeps changing, but so far schools and conferences have not re-aligned for academic reasons. The Big Ten only accepts AAU schools, but that is merely a criterion that eliminates certain schools from even being discussed. The ACC has been a lot less choosy: it added Louisville.
Among the schools that clear a conference’s academic bar, the decision is entirely based on athletics revenue, and as Jim Delany once said, it has to be compelling. Similarly, no school has switched conferences voluntarily except to make a lot more TV money. If they were also moving to an academically better conference, that’s gravy but not the reason that drives the decision.
So I am a bit skeptical that adding Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon to the ACC is compelling. The ACC and the Pac-12 are going to be second-tier leagues no matter how they are configured. Is any set of Pac-12 schools going to see the ACC as a big step up?
LikeLike
vpo819,
I’m not sure adding those 4 does much, if anything, for the ACC’s revenue.
Say the ACC is paying $40M * 14 = $560M
And those 4 add a generous $190M = $750M/18 = $41.7M
Is $1.7M worth coastal travel in all sports plus playing familiar foes less often? Is it worth it to the P12 4?
Now maybe it also increases ACCN revenue per school a little, but it won’t be much (for the same reason). I just don’t see the value.
The value would be in a 2 division football-only mega conference of ACC/B12/P12, where the top division gets paid much closer to the B10 and SEC, and the others don’t. They can do “relegation” every 5 years to provide a chance at the big money.
A = Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, VT, GT, WV, TT, OkSU, Baylor, UO, UW, Stanford, ASU, CU, UU
B West = UA, Cal, OrSU, WSU, BYU, TCU, UH, ISU, KU, KSU
B East = UC, UCF, BC, SU, Pitt, UL, UVA, WF, Duke, NCSU
What is the value of the LHN? They already have B12 Now on ESPN+. Is ESPN offering a linear channel permanently? And how much push for carriage would they give it? How is that equal to the value of letting UT and OU go early with no exit fees? That’s $160M guaranteed, plus another year of games with those 2 kings coming to your stadiums.
LikeLike
Also note this from a Twitter re the Big 12: ESPN has offered to convert the Longhorn Network into the Big 12 Network, with an initial seven-year contract (which presumably would increase in value were Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah to join). But there’s a catch: the Big 12 would have to let Oklahoma and Texas join the SEC in 2024 (not ’25) without charging any exit fee.
I would really like to know the source on that note. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a WV blogger.
LikeLike
Good guess, it was a WV blogger, MHver3, who has always been the Twitter enemy of fellow WV blogger, Dude of WV.
LikeLike
The WV bloggers do not have a trustworthy track record.
LikeLike
Good guess, it was a WV blogger, MHver3, who has always been the Twitter enemy of fellow WV blogger, Dude of WV.
I had no idea they were enemies. I would have assumed they’d be posting similar stuff. I wonder what happened there?
The WV bloggers do not have a trustworthy track record.
I give them this, they do give their audiences what they want regardless of reality.
LikeLike
Maybe calling them enemies is a little strong, but the Dude had pretty harsh words for MHver3 when he disputed MHver3’s info, and they bickered a lot back and forth (with the Dude usually the rude one, MHver always more cordial). Many came to suspect that MHver3 was really just a Dude burner account, where the Dude could present alternate scenarios.
The Dude and Flugaur (he of the Big Ten Man) were also Twitter foes for a while, but they’ve settled into a friendlier Twitter relationship. You have to give Flugaur credit, he’s been right on a lot of stuff and he was posting about USC talking the the B1G way before anyone else. BTM is a pretty good source.
LikeLike
The Dude and Flugaur (he of the Big Ten Man) were also Twitter foes for a while, but they’ve settled into a friendlier Twitter relationship. You have to give Flugaur credit, he’s been right on a lot of stuff and he was posting about USC talking the the B1G way before anyone else. BTM is a pretty good source.
Thanks for catching me up. I wrote most of them off years ago because (IMHO) they tended to build their followings by leading on fan bases with rumors that wouldn’t ever come to fruition. Flugar (IMO) was really bad about about that. Back then I never thought BTM was real. He could be, or maybe Flugar just got lucky.
LikeLike
Discussion on the Big Ten’s rights that’s worth your time. Expectation of Amazon overpaying and winning a Big Ten package.
LikeLike
SBJ is reporting that USC/UCLA will get full revenue shares their first year.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/07/12
USC and UCLA will enter the Big Ten in 2025 receiving a full share of the conference’s revenue distribution. That’s a much better arrangement for the new members than what Rutgers and Maryland received. Olson: “It was critical for UCLA and USC to come in as full members from Day 1.”
LikeLike
Some additions(/markets/brands) matter more.
LikeLike
Some presidents do a better job negotiating. For a bad example-see Nebraska. Rutgers had no leverage so you can’t really blame them.
LikeLike
Was Nebraska’s deal bad, given the facts at the time?
LikeLike
IMO, not at all. UNL and Mizzou made the very best out of their circumstances out of all the schools in recent expansion. There’s no way UNL is getting in to either the B10 or SEC these days.
LikeLike
Missouri (and Texas A&M) got 100% on day 1 from the SEC. Nebraska probably just recently caught up to Iowa St. since they left the Big 12. Nebraska’s deal was they would make no less than the projected Big 12 payouts. Well the payouts in the Big 12 went up substantially.
Nobody prior to Nebraska paid such an entry fee. Now Rutgers topped it. Other than Nebraska, nobody probably paid a total entry fee as much as Rutger’s discount just in 2017-18 ($42 million less than continuing members). Maryland was even making more than Nebraska in their early years.
LikeLike
The facts at the time: Colorado just left for the PAC and 5 other schools including TX and OK (but not NE or MO) were looking to do the same. So Nebraska was looking for a lifeboat. I am not sure if Missouri was acceptable to the B1G but Nebraska knew Missouri would take the deal if they passed on it. The larger PAC move fell apart but that was after NE accepted.
LikeLike
Did the SEC even have ownership in a network when A&M and Mizzou joined? If not, what’s there to buy in to?
In any case, these days, UNL almost certainly wouldn’t be able to get in to the B10 or SEC (while the SEC definitely would have still added A&M and likely would have added Mizzou) so IMO, UNL negotiated a terrific deal for themselves.
LikeLike
Nebraska didn’t have much leverage either.
As it turned out, Nebraska made an outstanding deal for itself. I’d grade their negotiating as an A+. There’s no way UNL is getting in to the B10 (or SEC) these days.
LikeLike
Both Maryland and Rutgers were promised an immediate increase in league revenue compared to prior conference and then something like a seven year buy in to full revenue. For UMd that was, of course, ACC revenue. UMd also borrowed money against future revenue. I am not sure when they get a full share.
For Rutgers the initial guarantee was approximately $102.78, which was pretty much the AAC revenue. Rutgers was scheduled to have a full share in 2022, but they have also borrowed, so now they will get full share in 2027. For quite a few years, RU got very little from the B1G (but still far more than an AAC share). For the next five years or so, RU will be repaying the B1G approximately $10 million per year, so their share is much closer to other teams.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/07/12
A good piece about the legal process behind USC and UCLA joining the B10.
Key nugget:
USC and UCLA will get full revenue shares from day 1. No BTN buy-in. How upset are NE and UMD right now (RU has no basis to complain)?
It makes some sense, with UCLA’s financial need, the value of LA, and the brands they bring. They had leverage NE and UMD didn’t have. But between selling 10% of BTN back to Fox and now adding 2 full members, the ownership shares have gotten significantly diluted for everyone else recently.
Also, the B10 was the only conference they contacted.
LikeLike
Considering that UNL probably wouldn’t even get in to the B10 these days and there are several Pac schools that bring at least as much as UMD and some more yet are in danger of being at a massive financial disadvantage to UMD going forward, I think they’re simply thanking their lucky stars that their key decision makers made the right call when they did.
Everybody’s a big boy here. We’re not in HS any more.
LikeLike
I doubt UMD would be angry long term, but they haven’t yet received a full share since they moved some money forward. They’d probably like to get at least 1 year of a full payout before new members that joined a decade later get it.
NE fans complained a lot at first, but as they continue to stink on the field they seem to have quieted down.
LikeLike
I think the league would be wise to forgive the loans they made to Rutgers and Maryland once the new deal has been signed.
I did read that most of the questions about the expansion came from the new members and the league’s response was satisfactory to them. Would have to think there is something for them.
LikeLike
Well yes. Adding the LA schools means more money for them (and everyone else).
I don’t think it’s a good idea to forgive the loans, but RU and UMD will be fine with the huge payouts the B10 will get very soon.
LikeLike
Well what would there be to buy into at this point, Big Ten only owns 39% among 14 (soon 16 schools).
Basically their buy in is the value they’re bringing to the aggregate.
Their situation is different because they’re probably adding $10m to every school in terms of media $ (BTN + media contracts).
And if BTN value increases by more than their equity dilution then it makes sense to give them full shares.
Financially it makes sense to grant full shares to ND, Texas/OU, USC/UCLA at entry.
LikeLike
Well what would there be to buy into at this point, Big Ten only owns 39% among 14 (soon 16 schools).
IIRC Nebraska paid around 60 million for its 1/12 of the 50% of the BTN. That puts the 2011 valuation of the BTN at about 1.4 billion (inline with some estimates I’ve seen). Using Wilner’s 1 billion estimate for the BTN from May, the buy in (39% of 1B divided by 16) for USC/UCLA would be about 24 million each. Over six years, that would be 4 million a year. Given what they are bringing in, I can see why they won’t make them pay it.
LikeLike
Yeah and beyond that, you’d think BTN valuation probably goes up by $100-150 million from the extra rights fees in LA/California for local Big Ten markets.
So 39% of that means they already added $50 million or so to the value of the Big Ten’s stake by just joining or basically the value of the 2 extra pieces they’re splitting.
LikeLike
@zeek – As you noted, the numbers are roughly the same. Not a lot to complain about for anyone.
16 shares of 39% of 1.15 billion = 28.03 million
14 shares of 39% of 1 billion = 27.85 million
LikeLike
“Yeah and beyond that, you’d think BTN valuation probably goes up by $100-150 million from the extra rights fees in LA/California for local Big Ten markets.”
Gotta wonder how many of the California/Nevada/Arizona DMAs will get the BTN into the basic packages for cable providers. LA is huge but we might also get large chunks of CA and some neighboring turf.
http://bl.ocks.org/simzou/6459889
LikeLike
FYI
LikeLike
https://ucfknights.com/news/2022/7/12/general-ucf-athletics-and-playfly-sports-announce-13-year-multimedia-rights-agreement.aspx
A reminder that there are many additional revenue streams beyond the TV deals. UCF just signed a 13-year multimedia deal, reportedly worth $125M (so almost $10M per year).
Apparel deals top $15M per year. There is merchandise, radio, advertising, sponsorship, naming rights, etc. The gaps in the TV deals are a real concern, but the absolute % gap is much smaller in total revenue.
LikeLike
The gaps in the TV deals are a real concern, but the absolute % gap is much smaller in total revenue.
But isn’t there a gap in just about everything? If UCF can get $10m a year from multimedia, what does UF get? I have to think it is a lot more.
LikeLike
Gaps vary. And no, I don’t think every P5 is making tens of millions on a multimedia deal right now. NE almost signed one for $18M, but it fell through.
UCLA was making more than OSU on their apparel deal until Under Armour reneged on it. With all these deals signed at different times, only a few schools will be getting full market value for a certain thing at any given time. That helps reduce the differences. And different schools have different values in these other areas. Otherwise schools like UL couldn’t be top 25 in revenue.
And expenses vary widely as well. As I pointed out elsewhere, Clemson actually outspends OSU on football. The difference in TV revenue hasn’t prevented that.
LikeLike
Sure, at any given time some schools might be earning more or less than they “should earn,” due to the timing of expirations, choice of partners, good or bad negotiating, etc. But the advantages that programs accrue are generational. Outside of these anomalies, programs generally are paid what they are worth — and that’s for everything.
LikeLike
Marc,
Purdue is paid what it’s worth? Wake Forest is? Some programs get to ride coattails, others don’t. If none was already in a P5 conference, would UCF, WF or PU be most likely to be invited? Which would bring the most value to the conference?
There are huge differences in what schools get from what they “deserve” in media money, and some of that carries over into the other areas as well.
LikeLike
Purdue is paid what it’s worth?
It’s paid what it is worth as a member of the Big Ten. If we were starting again without history, would a brand new imaginary Midwest league choose these two Indiana schools? Likely not. But conferences don’t regularly kick out their lowest performing members, the way the AAU does.
LikeLike
No, it’s paid an equal share of what the B10 can earn with PU in it. Just like USC and UCLA were worth $200M to the P12 TV deal but made less than $40M each, PU is worth a lot less to the B10 deal than what they get paid.
LikeLike
Wait until the difference in TV revenues explodes.
And sure, some schools will have more market-value deals at different times, but, assuming that a school isn’t terrible at negotiating, that will even out, so the power programs in the Big 2 will, on average, have a huge advantage over anyone not in the Big 2.
So in short, it’s still an extremely odd take on that factoid.
LikeLike
I concur with Marc.
That’s an extremely odd way to interpret that factoid.
The power programs in the Big 2 will outdistance everybody else in total revenue due to all those revenue streams.
Unless you’re trying to argue that Clemson and Oregon don’t have to fear falling behind Northwestern and Vandy or something weird/silly like that.
LikeLike
Re: buy ins.
Every school has different circumstances and enters at a different time in terms of media markets.
Go back to 2015 distributions: In fiscal 2015, Nebraska received $19.8 million, Maryland $24.1 million and Rutgers nearly $10.5 million.
The other 11 got $32.4 million each.
It makes sense, Maryland probably got $70 million less, Nebraska probably got around $100m less, and Rutgers probably got $200 million less.
That gap was their buy in, and in all 3 cases those end up looking pretty fair.
Maryland also got loans from the conference in the form of advanced distributions and Rutgers did as well.
Hard to say but considering what the conferences they came from were paying, those numbers are fair.
USC and UCLA giving up no income makes sense as well given they’re going to increase the value of BTN and the TV deals by more than they’ll take.
Nebraska increased TV deal value on net but not BTN.
Maryland/Rutgers increased BTN value on net but not the TV deals.
Maryland being a key cornerstone of the Mid-Atlantic and ACC is why they deserved a better package than Nebraska. And obviously Rutgers having a steep buy in made sense.
USC/UCLA will increase both BTN and TV deals on net. That’s the difference.
LikeLike
The other difference is that USC and UCLA are free agents. Even though the B1G is a better fit and the SEC says they are happy at 16 I believe the SEC would have given this pair a look if the B1G had demanded a $100M buy in from each school. The B1G did not want to give these schools any reason to talk to the SEC.
And given where they are today, I think Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers think the buy in they paid was well worth it.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s another important factor. USC could have probably found receptive ears in the ACC and SEC.
They could easily say “look even with no buy in, all your schools will be better off financially, it’s a win-win. We called you first, but everyone would want us.”
LikeLike
“Amazon, which will air the NFL’s Thursday night football series beginning this fall, would like to stream at least one Big Ten game per week on Amazon Prime.”
https://theathletic.com/3363313/2022/06/14/big-ten-tv-deal-faq/
Maybe I missed the info but I wasn’t previously aware of this. It would be interesting to know the time slot and whether they’re considering Illinois-Indiana caliber games or heavyweights.
LikeLike
The new NFL Thursday Night Football schedule is pretty good (materially better than prior years) – Chiefs-Chargers, Bucs-Ravens and Bills-Patriots are some of the games on the schedule this season. Those would otherwise be legit candidates for Sunday Night Football or other key NFL time slots, so these are no longer the leftover games that seemed to occur on TNF too often in the past. That type of schedule is why Amazon shelled out so much money for NFL rights. So, realistically, if the Big Ten wants a premium from Amazon, it would need to provide a slate of good-to-very good games. They wouldn’t move Michigan-Ohio State or Ohio State-USC to streaming, but maybe the Michigan/Ohio State/USC/Penn State vs. Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa/Michigan State level matchups would need to be a fair amount of the featured games. To extent that any lower level brands are on, they’ll need to be paired with one of the top brand names.
For that reason, I’m a little less bullish on Amazon getting a package here. They’re probably offering the most money, but the Big Ten still *really* values exposure. It would be strange for the Big Ten to critique ABC/ESPN for not maximizing their exposure but then turn around and put a bunch of high-level games onto an exclusive streaming package. This isn’t a situation like the recent MLS deal where the linear TV networks weren’t putting in strong bids, which meant that taking the money from Apple made the most sense. The Big Ten already has FOX with half of the rights and is getting super-strong bids from all of ABC/ESPN, CBS and NBC here.
LikeLike
There are 3 main Eastern TV time slots the Big Ten has to fill at 12, 3:30, and 7:30/8. I don’t think there will be enough pacific time zone content to regularly fill the 10 pm spot. So my question is does the addition of USC and UCLA give the Big Ten on average of 4 appealing matchups a weekend so that Amazon would be willing to purchase the 4th best game a week, or the 3rd at best?
LikeLike
Depending on how you define appealing, yes. With OSU, MI, PSU, USC, NE, WI, IA, and MSU combined, even with 3 on bye weeks there’d have to be 4 decent games unless they were all playing each other. And that ignores UCLA, or if NW or MN or someone is having a good year and ranked. I think they could count on having 4 decent ratings games every week.
LikeLike
We’ve known that Amazon have remained active in negotiations with the B10. The only reason would be for them to get some exclusive streaming rights.
You’d have to think the B10 would only consider low-value games. You don’t waste an OSU B10 game on a platform so many people don’t have, especially when the networks would pay so much to show it.
LikeLike
You don’t waste an OSU B10 game on a platform so many people don’t have, especially when the networks would pay so much to show it.
They did that with BTN. Every team is required to be on it twice per season, including at least one conference game. They must have recognized it would be worth a lot less if the great teams were never on it.
I am not saying they will (or should) do that with Amazon, but there is a precedent for it. If you think now is the time for streaming, it can’t be all Purdue and Rutgers. There need to be at least some half-decent games on there.
LikeLike
They owned part of BTN. Is Amazon offering a piece of Prime subscriptions?
Now is not the time for streaming when your sport has an older and aging fan base. Many of them don’t stream at all, and aren’t even sure what streaming is. The B10 will, of course, put some decent games on there to try to force people to use it, but they will see massive losses of B10 viewers for those games. Let alone all the casual fans who won’t bother checking if Amazon has a game while regular TV is showing 3+ games.
They’d be wiser to start with exclusive streaming only for less desirable games. If you want to build up streaming, they need to do it of broadcast games at first and let people choose their avenue. At least that way they’ve built up a group more likely to stream other games. At least ESPN has their whole environment to send people to ESPN+. Amazon has no other connection to B10 or CFB fans.
LikeLike
I think the fact of the matter is that streaming is going to be part of any equation going forward.
One point that John Ourand made on his podcast last week is that even the linear TV network bidders – ABC/ESPN, CBS and NBC – are insisting upon a streaming component in any package. So, if there are going to be Big Ten games on streaming in some form, then a bid from Amazon is going to be taken more seriously because that’s actually a much broader platform compared to ESPN+, Paramount+ or Peacock by comparison (not to mention Amazon can clearly outspend everyone else). Wall Street is still giving somewhat of a pass to companies for heavy programming spending if it can be justified in the name of boosting up a streaming service (although even that position has eroded a lot over the past few months a la the collapse of Netflix’s stock price).
I’m not saying that it’s a good or bad idea for the Big Ten to go to Amazon. However, the marketplace is dictating that streaming component as a must have going forward. The entire Walt Disney Company has been restructured with Disney+ and their other streaming platforms as the very center to *every* decision within that corporation (and that’s the company that’s still making the most money on linear cable subscription fees by far). So, it’s not really comparing having Big Ten games on Amazon vs. ABC/ESPN/CBS/NBC, but rather ESPN+/Paramount+/Peacock.
The NFL breaking the seal of actually putting high quality games on Amazon this year also has a big-time impact where I don’t think the Big Ten (or anyone else) can really expect much money from just a cursory streaming package of low level conference games. Once again, I’m a lot less bullish on a substantial exclusive streaming component for this round of Big Ten media rights negotiations, but to the extent that a package is sold, it pretty much HAS to include the big brands like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and now USC with a fair amount of frequency. The NFL has set the standard and if *they* are willing to put games like Chiefs-Chargers or Patriots-Bills as Amazon streaming exclusives (which are games that if they were on linear TV would get bigger ratings than *every* college football game outside of *maybe* the National Championship Game, if that), then no other sports entity has much room to push back.
LikeLike
I just saw today that those over 50 are making up a significant share of the streaming market. In fact the largest share. Older folks grew up with TV and still enjoy the entertainment value. The younger generations are much less interested in traditional television. It’s all phones or you tube.
LikeLike
Frank,
The key is we’re discussing several different things. Every company may want a streaming component, but that’s different than an exclusive streaming component. And there’s what streaming package would make a lot of money for the B10 versus what wouldn’t. There is no need to exclusively stream important games, and certainly not with an Amazon where there is no related or complementary material. It’s a completely separate environment.
Fox is not as streaming focused, while ESPN is. CBS and NBC are in between. Luckily the B10 isn’t 100% owned by ESPN like some others, and with multiple suitors the B10 has options. The B10 will at least dabble in streaming this time, but I think they’d be wise to only dabble for now and let another short deal pass before getting deeper into streaming. The B10 doesn’t need a high-revenue streaming deal at this moment. They can take less risk on it and let others (like the P12 or B12 or ACC) commit more, and see how it works out.
NBC did exclusive streaming on Peacock Premium for 1 game last year and got a lot of pushback. Peacock also streamed their other games, and that didn’t draw complaints. I think that’s a better model for the B10 to start with. Jumping straight to a game per week will draw a lot of anger, especially since it forces people to buy subscriptions they don’t want. Maybe they have an objection to Amazon’s business practices (many do), but now it’s the only option to watch your local state school play a game? And they have to pay Amazon’s ridiculous subscription fee. And that’s on top of also needing cable to get all the other games that are spread over multiple networks. It’s not a wise business model at this point.
The NFL model doesn’t always work for CFB. This is another money grab decision that will cost CFB a part of its fan base, just like marginalizing the ACC, B12, and P12 will. Here’s hoping they put the entire expanded CFP on some streaming service – I don’t watch it anyway, but everyone else can give CFB a huge revenue stream.
LikeLike
My family is one of the tiny minority that doesn’t have an Amazon subscription, but as I mentioned, we’re in a tiny minority.
Unlike Peacock, the vast majority of B10 fans who care to watch every game of their team would already have an Amazon subscription.
LikeLike
Jumping straight to a game per week will draw a lot of anger, especially since it forces people to buy subscriptions they don’t want.
This is exactly what they did with BTN. I would far prefer that all 12 of my team’s football games were on the channels I already get, rather than having to buy an extra channel I seldom watch. But the Big Ten said, sorry Charlie, we are going to make you buy it or lose 1/6th of the season. Tough luck for you.
At least I already have Amazon Prime and get more out of it than just two football games.
LikeLike
https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/amazon-prime-video-penetration-45-us-price-hikes-wont-deter-customers-parks-associates
45% of US internet households have Amazon Prime, so it’s not a “tiny minority” that doesn’t have it. And only 71% of Amazon Prime members even watch AP Video, so that’s less than 1/3 of all internet households.
And as I noted before, Marc, at least the B10 owns a share of BTN. It stunk, but you understood them trying to generate money for themselves that way. Is Amazon offering a cut of their subscriber revenue?
There are a lot of Amazon boycott movements out there, over things ranging from business practices to how they treat employees to environmental concerns. You don’t necessarily want to get in the middle of that.
LikeLike
If you are interested, the Marchand and Ourand podcast I liked above discusses Amazon.
LikeLike
I can remember when the NFL was debating whether it should be on cable, because many households did not have it.
LikeLike
And this many years later, where are most of their games? CBS, Fox, NBC. Still.
Yes, ESPN gets a chunk, but it’s got huge market penetration for sports fans unlike Amazon Prime streaming.
The BCS took a ratings hit when it moved all games to ESPN.
LikeLike
66mm American households have Amazon Prime while 76mm American households have ESPN.
It’s not a huge difference any more.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-rankings-seven-teams-preseason-polls-are-struggling-to-place-ahead-of-2022-season/
The new commissioner wants to rebrand the B12.
Already, Yormark has flexed his branding muscles to define his vision for the conference. The phrase “young and hip” was at the front of his mind as the conference fights to increase its relevance and market share among the 18-24 demographic.
Yormark emphasized that he plans on keeping linear broadcasts at the center of the Big 12’s central broadcast package — think major networks like CBS, FOX and ESPN. However, he wants to use other platforms as storytelling tools to expand the league’s brand.
“There’s an opportunity to nationalize this brand, to be more aspirational, to appeal to youth culture, to get younger and hipper,” said Yormark. “Those are the things I’ll be working on.”
Young and hip will be an interesting challenge with schools like ISU and BYU.
LikeLike
Goodbye to the Big 12 brand and hello to the #TikTok12!
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34238029/oklahoma-state-football-coach-mike-gundy-asks-why-texas-oklahoma-allowed-big-12-business-meetings
Mike Gundy says OU moving will end the Bedlam series. I suppose the state may force it, but it sounds like Gundy has no interest in it. Doesn’t OkSU usually play a P5 OOC game anyway? Maybe Bedlam becomes a part-time rivalry?
“The future of Bedlam is there’s a year or two left,” Gundy said. “I mean, that’s the future of Bedlam, based on somebody else’s decision.”
He later told reporters that continuing the series isn’t logistically possible with the two schools being in different conferences.
“It’s not really feasible,” Gundy said. “We’re scheduled out through ’32? ’33? Most conferences, once all this settles down, you’re gonna have a minimum of nine conference games, in my opinion. So you’re talking about contract buyouts, and you’re talking about convincing head coaches to play another game, which would be like playing another conference game. There’s a lot going on. I think most fans would love to do it. I just don’t think it’s feasible to happen, in my opinion.”
LikeLike
There is a persistent delusion that state legislatures and even boards of regents exercise detailed control over state universities. They don’t. State universities are highly independent and more or less do whatever they want. BoR’s are coordinating agencies, not governing agencies. They mostly function to prevent needless duplication of degree programs, but a determined school can get what it wants.
The most egregious intervention in Ohio was as the threat to legislate a requirement that tOSU schedule one MAC Ohio school every year. tOSU preemptively complied, and the legislation never happened.
However, Ohio’s universities are strongly regional, and the state representatives from each region regard the local school as their own pet projects. So also sorts of strange stuff happens.
So, it is possible the Oklahoma legislature will mandate the Bedlam game, but I seriously doubt it. OkSU might want it, and the representatives who take a personal interest in it also might want it. But if UOk doesn’t, and the representatives who support don’t, it won’t happen.
Similarly, the UCal BoR won’t prevent UCLA’s move to the B1G, because it isn’t within their purview.
LikeLike
In Arkansas the state constitution gives boards and commissions fairly wide latitude. State Supreme Court would almost certainly strike down a law mandating a game or cutting funds if game wasn’t played. Offering more money as an inducement would likely pass muster.
Your state constitution will vary.
LikeLike
Actually, the power of BoRs varies from state to state and even system to system. While it appears the UC BoR can’t kill UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, other BoRs have blocked (or were prepared to block) similar moves.
Back in ’70’s when the PAC 8 decided they wanted to expand, they settled on Arizona as their target. UA wanted to go, but the Arizona Board of Regents (which oversees UA and ASU) told the PAC that UA and ASU were a package deal and they could have both or neither. The PAC tried to call their bluff, but backed down when they realized the BoR was serious about refusing to UA go alone.
During the 2011 round of realignment, then University of Texas President Bill Powers requested that the UT BoR grant him unilateral authority to potentially change the Longhorns conference affiliation, which was the same power the presidents at TAMU, OU, OSU and WVU had already been granted. The UT BoR (who were afraid a move to the the PAC would require the school to shutdown the LHN) declined and killed Texas chance at joining the PAC.
LikeLike
This is a rumor that I have never, ever heard. As a Texas fan, it sounds like fan fiction. Texas decided not to join in 2010. There was never any indication that there was a serious thought of it in 2011. And it was Bill Powers who made the call in 2010.
LikeLike
This article talks about it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111111094851/https://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2011/09/19/regents_give_po.html
Powers asked for full authority to change conferences; the BoR only granted him the authority to negotiate on the University’s behalf.
Contrast, Oklahoma and Okie St. whose presidents were given absolute power.
LikeLike
Here is another article that summarizes the events
https://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-tait/2011/sep/19/realignment-today-947-am-pac-12-obstacle/
To clarify, OU president Boren has total control. He can negotiate and authorize a move by the Sooners to another conference or give the thumbs up on them staying. UT president Bill Powers has the authority to negotiate and can give the thumbs up on UT staying in the Big 12 but if he determines that Texas needs to move, the UT regents would have to approve that.
—-
Now it is still possible Powers could have decided to simply stay put, but after the BoR refused to grant Powers the authority he sought, the negotiations with the PAC cool very quickly.
LikeLike
Sorry for the triple post, but this very issue actually came up in this blog
Read the comment section and you will see links to the same articles I linked to (also get all our thoughts from 11 years ago).
LikeLike
So. The article says Powers got all the authority he requested. The part about the board limiting him because of the LHN isn’t mentioned at all. I don’t know where you pulled that from.
Powers got the authority every Texas president got. Ultimately if you change you have to go back to the board for final approval. That was how it worked for President Cunningham in 1990 and 1994 and for Powers in 2010.
Texas never got serious about leaving in 2011. Now if OU left, then it would have kicked into overdrive.
LikeLike
Didn’t the Iowa legislature command Iowa and Iowa State to play every year?
LikeLike
Pretty certain UF and FSU play every year because the FL legislature forced them to back in the day as well.
LikeLike
The Virginia legislature mandated the ACC add VT in order to get UVA’s deciding vote when the ACC expanded in 2003. I’ll be curious to see if the same thing happens in NC. The UNC System is controlled by a system-side Board. When the ACC GoR expires and the B1G and/or SEC come calling will the Board require UNC and NC State to be a package deal?
LikeLike
“system-wide”
LikeLike
Iowa and ISU didn’t play between 1934 and 1977. There were some public statements from the state legislature and other politicians which helped force it to happen, but there wasn’t ever any law or policy change. In 1971, the state board of regents sent it to arbitration where it was ruled that Iowa “is obligated” to play a 4-game series vs ISU. Fortunately, it became an annual game.
This link has good background.
https://www.thegazette.com/sports/4-cy-hawk-myths-legislation-forced-series-renewal/
This paragraph really sums up how different things were:
There were few universal rules among leagues back then, and The Gazette columnist Gus Schrader highlighted some differences for Iowa’s reluctance to play. Iowa State granted 45 football scholarships a year while Iowa could give only 30. ISU could red-shirt players; Iowa could not. ISU could offer its athletes $15 a month as a stipend, while Iowa could not. Iowa players needed to have a grade predictability – Schrader’s words – of 1.7, while ISU needed only a 1.6. ISU fielded 10 assistant coaches, while Iowa had just seven.
LikeLike
There were some public statements from the state legislature and other politicians which helped force it to happen, but there wasn’t ever any law or policy change.
Thanks for clarifying. Legislators and government officials can sometimes “force” something to happen merely by rattling the saber, even if no law or regulation is ever passed.
LikeLike
For decades, Iowa refused to schedule Iowa State in anything, something thst supposedly arose from a football game in Ames where ISC (Iowa State College; it didn’t become a university until 1959) beat the Hawkeyes and there were some fisticuffs in the stands. The state legislature forced the U of I to change its policy, and the teams resumed their basketball rivalry in 1971-72 (the year ISU opened Hilton Coliseum and beat the Hawks), but didn’t meet again in football until 1977. (The first four games were in Iowa City, as ISU didn’t open its current stadium until 1975.)
LikeLike
Unrelated but perhaps of interest:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1172245-classic-big-ten-football-illinois-at-iowa-1953
Iowa and Illinois refused to play each other in football between 1953 and 1967.
LikeLike
State legislatures used to have a lot more power.
But, with universities seeing cutbacks on state funding, the legislatures don’t have as much leverage as they used to.
LikeLike
I have been on vacation and at a conference since the beginning of the month and missing out on all the fun here at FTTS. But I have been reading comments. There are way too many to respond to, so I won’t.
While on hiatus, I did see a fun exercise on another message board about setting up a draft of the ACC/B12/P12-2 to come up with fairly equal conferences that, while being a notch or two below the SEC/B1G, that would still be competitive. After playing around with the idea, I came up with a way to put several of the old conferences partially back together again. I know this is just fantasy, but here’s what I came up with.
CONFERENCE EFP (Eastern/Flyover/Pacific)
– Old Big East
1. Miami
2. VA Tech
3. Pitt
4. West VA
5. Syracuse
6. BC
7. Cincy
8. Louisville
– Old Big 8
9. Iowa State
10. K-State
11. Kansas
12. OK State
– Old Pac 8
13. Washington
14. Wash State
15. Oregon
16. Oregon State
17. Cal
18. Stanford
CONFERENCE ATM (Atlantic/Texas/Mountain)
– Old ACC
1. Florida State
2. GA Tech
3. UNC
4. NC State
5. Duke
6. Wake Forest
7. Clemson
8. UVA
– Old SWC
9. TCU
10. Baylor
11. Texas Tech
12. Houston
– Newer Pac 10/12
13. Arizona
14. Arizona State
15. Utah
16. Colorado
– Misfit Toys
17. BYU
18. UCF
LikeLike
Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and BYU were all original members of the WAC along with Wyoming and New Mexico, and Colorado was in the Old Big 8. The only true misfit is UCF.
LikeLike
Even better. Thanks
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/power-5-desirability-rankings-sec-big-ten-acc
P5 desirability rankings by Pat Forde. He created a formula considering football ranking (Sagarin 5-yr average), academic ranking (USNWR), all-sports ranking (Director’s Cup), CFB attendance, TV viewership (# of game with > 1M). I’m not vouching for his methodology, just listing it. Obviously desirability depends on which conference is looking (academics means more to some than others, some want access to a certain state while others already have it, etc.).
Schools of interest to realignment discussion:
3) Notre Dame
15) Washington
16) Clemson
17) Stanford
19) Florida St
22) tie UNC/Oregon
25) tie Oklahoma St/Miami
27) Iowa St
30) tie NC St/Arizona St
32) Virginia
35) tie Virginia Tech/Indiana/Utah
46) Cal
50) Duke
54) Georgia Tech
68) Kansas
2025 top 25 by conference (* = new member):
B10 (8) – 1, 2, 7, 9*, 11, 18*, 20, 21
SEC (9) – 4*, 5, 6, 8*, 10, 12, 13, 14, 24
ACC (4) – 16, 19, 22, 25
P12 (3) – 15, 17, 22
B12 (1) – 25
LikeLike
Let’s overlay Mandel’s Kings/Barons list, AAU status, and home attendance rankings for the five years before COVID with Forde’s Desirability Ratings. Brian, I added a few ACC and P-1? schools for discussion purposes.
3) Notre Dame KING #15 in home attendance
15) Washington KNIGHT AAU #20 in home attendance
16) Clemson KING #14 in home attendance
17) Stanford KNIGHT/former BARON AAU #51 in home attendance
19) Florida St BARON/former KING #19 in home attendance
22) tie UNC KNIGHT AAU #41 in home attendance
22) tie Oregon BARON AAU #35 in home attendance
25) tie Oklahoma St KNIGHT #36 in home attendance
25) tie Miami BARON/former KING #34 in home attendance
27) Iowa St PEASANT AAU #30 in home attendance
30) tie NC St KNIGHT #29 in home attendance
30) tie Arizona St KNIGHT #40 in home attendance
32) Virginia PEASANT AAU #54 in home attendance
35) tie Virginia Tech KNIGHT/former BARON #24 in home attendance
35) tie Utah KNIGHT AAU #43 in home attendance
46) Cal KNIGHT AAU #50 in home attendance
50) Duke PEASANT AAU #79 in home attendance
54) Georgia Tech KNIGHT AAU #42 in home attendance
57) Colorado PEASANT AAU #44 in home attendance
61) Arizona PEASANT AAU #45 in home attendance
68) Kansas PEASANT AAU #80 in home attendance
Taking into consideration the B1G’s desire for AAU schools, assuming the ACC, B-12 & P-1? schools all become free agents in the mid 30s, and if the B1G & SEC wanted to expand to 20 or 24, it could go like this:
B1G: (3) Notre Dame, KING, non-AAU; (15) Washington, KNIGHT, AAU; (17) Stanford, KNIGHT, AAU; (22) Oregon, KNIGHT, AAU; (30) AZ State, KNIGHT, non-AAU; (35) Utah, KNIGHT, AAU; (46) Cal, KNIGHT, AAU; (57) Colorado, PEASANT, AAU
SEC: (16) Clemson, KING, non-AAU; (19) Florida State, KNIGHT, non-AAU; (22) UNC, KNIGHT, AAU; (25) Miami, KNIGHT, non-AAU; (30) NC State, KNIGHT, non-AAU; (32) UVA, PEASANT, AAU; (35) VA Tech, KNIGHT, non-AAU; (50) Duke, PEASANT, AAU
I think #25 OK State, #27 Iowa State, #54 GA Tech, and #61 Arizona get passed over due duplication without any real football value. Sure the B1G could ditch Colorado for basketball royalty Arizona or Kansas, and it really wouldn’t matter for #24, but Colorado is a booming state, the stronger Arizona school would have already been taken, and Kansas is a small non-growth state.
By the time the 2030s roll around, the B1G may not turn their nose up at non-AAU Arizona State with its large market Phoenix DMA, huge student body, and all the B1G grandparent and transplant snow birds living down there. And, out of 24 schools, three non-AAU schools ain’t bad.
The B1G and the SEC do not want to share states, especially in the South. By not sharing a state, the ongoing argument about conference supremacy will never be solved. I would think they both like it that way. If, as many on this board think, AAU UNC & UVA would prefer the B1G, I strongly believe that non-AAU VA Tech & NC State as the “less desirable” state schools would quickly surpass the flagships as the premier football schools in their respective states. The general population in both states would Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Maryland & USC, but would care less about any other teams. However, they would care about almost all the SEC schools, or at least Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee (all of which have won NCs in the BCS/CFP era) along with regional foes South Carolina & Kentucky, and possibly new SEC members and former ACC mates Clemson, Florida State & Miami. Furthermore, VA Tech and NC State most likely have many more alums in state than their more nationally based counterparts. They both have bigger stadiums and better football attendance for the five years before COVID. https://collegefootballnews.com/gallery/college-football-attendance-5-year-average-for-every-school
I could see a scenario where the B1G takes UVA and VA Tech to lock down Virginia, as neither deliver the state by themselves, while the SEC takes UNC, NC State & Duke. UNC & UVA could continue their rivalry with OOC games.
The reason I still think 24 is the ultimate endgame in the 2030s for the SEC/ESPN and the B1G/FOX is that at some point it won’t just be about individual value-ads, it will be about not wasting money on contracts with the have nots. It may be cheaper to deal with two 24-team super conferences than to deal with 2 16-team super conferences and 3 middle class conferences.
LikeLike
ND and FSU (maybe Clemson) really the only sure-fire adds from a purely TV revenue perspective. UW on the edge.
If there is value to forming a conference that can be seen as an academic near-peer to the Ivy League (as I believe), then it also makes sense for the B10 to add Stanford and Cal along with UW, try to add Duke, UVa, and UNC, and maybe GTech). With ND if possible, of course.
LikeLike
Clemson is similar to UNL and UO in that they only bring football prowess. So if they go through a down period in football, they really bring nothing. Though Clemson (due to geography) is much better positioned to sustain football success than UNL or UO.
LikeLike
That could be the Big Ten circa 2036, once ACC members are free to join — add Cal, Stanford, Washington and Notre Dame. Then go for 24 with Virginia, North Carolina and Duke, but would #24 (not necessarily in order of admission) be Oregon or Georgia Tech?
LikeLike
GTech, IMO. We already have a UNL.
For reruiting (both football and OOS students), GTech/Atlanta makes far more sense (even though Alan doesn’t like the idea, though if the SEC is so superior, I’m not sure why he cares).
LikeLike
Alan – those are good points about Arizona State that I hadn’t considered. I don’t think ASU has a prayer of getting into the Big Ten today. But in 10 years, with more total Phoenix population, northern transplants, and perhaps increased student body and research, they may be on the upswing.
However, I disagree with The Big Ten taking UVA and Va Tech together. I don’t think the numbers add up, and if the Big Ten were to take two schools from the same state again, there had better be a very compelling reason. Something that moves the needle. Notre Dame of course would be the third Indiana school, and the football brand certainly moves the needle. Stanford Academics + a beach head in the Bay area market will move the needle.
North Carolina is 10.8 million people. Virginia is 8.6 million, but I’m guessing 1.5 million are in the DC metro area, which is already somewhat covered by Maryland.
I could see a scenario where the The Big Ten desires UNC and Duke for Elite Academics/Research as well as the North Carolina market. I just don’t see the same scenario for Virginia.
LikeLike
Alan,
It looks like the lists agree reasonably. It mostly trends from king to baron to knight to peasant, and is roughly in order of home attendance.
As to the scenario, I just don’t see either conference wanting to get that big under the current system. I see 18, maybe 20, for the B10 (whatever it takes to get ND). I’m not sure if the SEC would even respond, but maybe to the same size.
Option 1 (18):
Obviously the B10 would take ND, and any required partner. That’s the only way I see UW or Stanford getting in (ND + UW/Stanford).
Option 2 (20):
I think UO is a pass, and the rest of the P12 is a definite no. The B10 can’t chase every market in the US, and ASU is a poor institutional fit. UU and CU don’t bring value, and neither would Cal (esp. if Stanford is already in). I think the B10’s preference would be to also add UNC and UVA with ND, with either Duke, UW, or Stanford filling the last spot. That gets the B10 to 20 (ND + UNC + UVA + Duke/UW/Stanford).
If UNC prefers the SEC (or staying put), then the B10 sticks to 18 (ND + 1).
For the SEC, the question I can’t answer is whether or not the ACC football powers actually add value. Would adding Clemson, FSU, and Miami make the SEC more money, break even, or reduce the payout? Unless it’s a sizable boost, I don’t see the point in adding schools in states they already dominate. That leaves NC and VA as targets.
Option 1 (ACC powers add value – 20):
The SEC adds Miami, FSU, Clemson, but GT serves no purpose unless the B10 is also chasing them. Instead the SEC invites UNC as the 4th. If UNC chooses the B10, the SEC takes NCSU for 20 (Clemson + FSU + Miami + UNC/NCSU). The state of Virginia isn’t worth going past 20, so they stop.
Option 2 (ACC powers don’t add value – 18):
The SEC adds UNC (or NCSU) and UVA (or VT) to get to 18 and stops (UNC/NCSU + UVA/VT). I’m assuming if UNC comes they prefer UVA, but otherwise the SEC prefers VT.
—
Now, if there is something pushing them further, then I think you would see split states. Neither UVA nor VT dominates VA, but also neither is valuable enough to justify doubling up (unless the B10 is locked out of NC). I don’t think the B10 would take VT without UVA (unless with ND), and they also wouldn’t take NCSU – it’s UNC or bust in NC for the B10. The SEC can take either school in NC or VA. More importantly, the B10 might chase GT and Miami (esp. if they make AAU – they’re close). A piece of GA and FL is better than nothing, and Miami is a slightly better fit than FSU (less southern, too). The SEC could always take them to block the B10 of course (all would lean SEC I think). The B10’s last option is adding the western block of P12 AAU schools. There just isn’t value there with all the travel, bad time zones, and weak fan fervor.
I agree that any schools from VA and NC that join the SEC would likely become the dominant CFB program in that state, especially VT and NCSU. That’s the SEC’s focus. The flagships are more focused on hoops and other sports, so they wouldn’t separate as much. That said, I think you overstate the attractiveness of some of the lesser SEC programs to fans in NC and VA and perhaps undersell WI and MSU
I don’t know about NCSU having more alumni in NC than UNC. A quick search shows UNC with 350,000 living alumni, with 186,000 in NC. NCSU has over 250,000 alumni, with 160,000 in NC. That will change over time as NCSU is a little larger and a lot more undergrads. But I think UNC will always have more T-shirt fans, mostly due to hoops success.
I think you’re more likely to see the P2 at 18-20, then the middle 3 merge into 2 conferences just for football. The upper conference would be able to compete with the P2 as they wouldn’t have to spread the revenue over so many schools that lack high value. The other half would be near the top of the G5 in performance, but would be more focused on hoops and other sports.
The step after that would be the NFL-lite version with 2 megaconferences above everyone else. That will actually doom CFB, as over time people will notice it’s just a lesser version of the XFL, USFL, and CFL, and all sentimental attachment to schools will be lost.
LikeLike
Alan,
Another interesting hypothetical is what happens if the AAU adds or subtracts some of these schools of interest.
KU and UO are at risk of being dropped by 2036. KU isn’t a likely B10 candidate unless they are going to 24 or more, but losing AAU status would likely doom them.
UO is already a borderline B10 candidate at best, so this would likely be the final nail in the coffin. It would reduce the western choice for ND’s +1 to UW or Stanford, and really makes it hard to decide on who the 3rd from the P12 would be if the B10 needed 3 from the P12. Do they really also take Cal (doubling up with a bad program in a market that doesn’t care)? Does UO get reconsidered? CU? I just can’t see it being ASU, UA, or UU.
And what about the most likely new P5 additions? What if Miami gets in? Would the B10 dare to reach that far? Would it be ND + Miami? Would they want GT as a bridge or regional partner?
Less likely are ASU, VT, and NCSU, but they might be more intriguing. If ASU is AAU, I think they become a viable candidate for a 24-team B10. Would an AAU VT be a viable B10 option, or would pride demand UVA? I don’t have the same question about NCSU in NC because the hoops brand matters too much. VT is the bigger CFB brand in VA, but I think UNC would demand UVA. VT + UVA might be the only way VT could get in.
And if they are going for > 20, do the B10 drop the AAU criteria and just look for good enough (FSU? VT? NCSU? Miami? ASU? Others?)?
LikeLike
You just don’t take a 3rd from the West if Oregon loses AAU.
Why do you need a 3rd from the West? There’s no scenario that requires that at this point.
Paths to 18:
ND + Stanford
UNC + UVA (in the 2030s)
Washington + Oregon (if it happens anytime soon or before Oregon loses AAU)
Washington + Stanford (highly unlikely)
Paths to 20 in the 2030s:
ND + Stanford + UNC + UVA
ND + UNC + UVA + Duke
UNC + UVA + Duke + 1 (Washington or Georgia Tech or Miami or FSU or whoever)
Paths to 22:
Go to 20 first with [UNC + UVA + Duke + 1 (Washington or Georgia Tech or Miami or FSU or whoever)] then add ND + Stanford.
No scenario requires a 3rd Western school at this point.
LikeLike
z33k,
Many people refuse to believe the B10 won’t add multiple western partners for USC and UCLA. The scenario I was discussing was if one subscribes to the ND + 3 P12 theory of expansion (with or without 4 from the ACC).
LikeLike
The main problem with Pat Forde’s SI article is that he’s using the Medium tv ratings article for his tv ratings data, and that data is blatantly and severely erroneous. When a game is in the SEC Network, for example, because they SEC Network doesn’t report their ratings, they counted those games as zero viewers. But obviously those games didn’t have zero viewers. But the more games you had on the SEC Network, the lower your numbers would be. Missouri, for example, had 9 out of 13 of their games on the SEC Network. All of those 9 games were counted as zero viewers. This is clearly wrong. So it reports Missouri as averaging something like 400k viewers per game. But in fact, in the games that actually did report viewership, Missouri averaged over 2 million viewers per game. It’s pretty shameful that they are using these numbers as if they are legit when they’re clearly totally off.
LikeLike
All of his numbers are garbage in various ways. Using the value of the USNWR ranking? Academics are at best a 3 tier rankings system (yes, maybe, no), and what is good enough depends on which conference is looking. Attendance is limited by stadium size, school size, and opponents. And just adding rankings in each area? What is the basis for that weighting of factors?
Not everything is an attack on Missouri. All the P5 schools had that effect with conference networks, but those games do in fact draw fewer viewers than national broadcasts draw. Being put on the conference network more does say something about the relative value of your games to the TV networks (they choose to broadcast more UA and UF and UGA games for a reason). As with all games, when and where they show it makes a big difference on the ratings anyway, as does the competition. As with most things he was working on, there’s no good way to get clean numbers.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it was only attacking Missouri, I just used Missouri as an example of how messed up the numbers could be. Missouri had four games outside of the SEC Network. One on ESPNU that drew about 500k. Two on ESPN that drew about 3 million. And one on CBS that drew about 3 million. The other 9 were on the SEC Network and Medium counted those games as zero viewers. So the total average for Missouri was counted as 400k. That’s absolutely ridiculous. If Missouri averaged 500k on those SEC Network games, just for the sake of argument, then that would be an average of about a million viewers per game total. Now, it could be somewhat more or less than that, but 400k per game is just completely false. But I’m sure it’s not just Missouri that had garbage data. I’m sure lots of schools did.
And yes, I agree that using USNews rankings is ridiculous. The USNews rankings don’t even factor in research, which is a big deal to the Big Ten and probably other conferences as well.
LikeLike
I do not know what 4 Missouri games were on broadcast TV in 2021, but I would put money on Auburn, Georgia, and Florida being 3 of them. That would be a good base for 2M+ average views per broadcast game.
LikeLike
Poor Cal. The very concept of one of America’s premier public universities being rated so low (and thus likely being relegated to the Mountain West despite more than a century of big-time tradition) is somewhat tragic. It’s sort of Rutgers, inverted.
LikeLike
Eh. Academic prowess/desirability and athletic/football prowess/desirability often do not line up. Just ask Rice and the Ivies about that.
LikeLike
I haven’t studied the history of Rice football, but the Ivies made a very deliberate decision to NOT pursue top-level football — only 10 games a year, no postseason, no athletic scholarships. Cal made no such choice.
LikeLike
I was listening to Rick Neuheisel today, and he seems pretty confident that Stanford and Cal are headed to the B1G. Considering that he’s likely better connected in the Pac than almost anybody, it’s worth considering IMO.
LikeLike
I certainly would add them. But does Neuheisel work for Cal or Stanford in their administration now? Because the number of people who would know of anything would be limited to a handful. Even coaches, much less former coaches would not be kept in the loop.
LikeLike
I would not be surprised if B1G took Stanford or Cal and Stanford.
I would be surprised if Rick had actual knowledge of such a move at this point. More likely someone said we are talking. Doesn’t mean mutual interest exists.
As an aside.
I would not be at all surprised if Phil Knight has damaged Oregon’s chances. University CEO’s do not like the perception their decisions are for sale.
Fred Smith tried it with Big East. They eventually did make it but after most of the CEOs had left or their institution left.
Falwell did a tour in the Liberty jet to each Sun Belt school offering to pay a double entry fee and to secure a six figure donation to each school. He lost votes from the stunt.
Oregon will get in B1G if the arm’s length numbers work and presidents like the fit but there will be wariness of people thinking Knight bought their way in.
LikeLike
https://boardroom.tv/ncaa-football-apparel-brand-partners/
Knight should try to make a business case for Nike sponsoring more of the P12 schools, and at higher rates. They only have 7 of 12 schools, and most were under $5M per year back in 2018. I’m sure the numbers have changed some, but that would be an easy way to help stabilize the conference.
Nike already sponsors the P12 itself, but it could always pay more. That’s another way to stabilize it.
And last, Knight himself could donate a lot to all the schools. Yet another way to provide stability.
Those sound more acceptable than cold-calling people or throwing money at other conferences.
LikeLike
The people who would know would probably be in the B$G. It would be held very close at Cal/Stanford and everybody is talking to everybody, so what is known at the potential targets is not necessarily interest. Not that I would be surprised if it happened, but a Pac connection is probably not the best spot when the B$G is doing the picking.
LikeLike
I’m skeptical on Cal at this point. I just don’t see it. The other 3 are still possible at some point (Washington/Oregon/Stanford). Everyone else in the Pac-12 has very low odds of ever getting a Big Ten invite.
Maybe something radical like Arizona State getting AAU and then winning two national championships in football or something else would change that, but that’s a pipe dream.
I was very confident USC/UCLA would come last year after the Texas/OU move, but I’d also assumed they’d come with a minimum of 2 others (Washington/Oregon) to 4 others (Washington/Oregon/Cal/Stanford) . But since they came alone as a pair, that changes the scenarios looking forwards.
The Big Ten is trying to maximize its remaining openings (possibly trying to stay at a max of 20 if possible) while getting the schools it wants.
More than anything, there’s only really 2 schools out there that the Big Ten really wants: Notre Dame and UNC. Those 2 are the most “must have” of the remaining schools not affiliated with either the Big Ten or SEC. ND’s national brand and UNC as the anchor of the Mid-Atlantic region.
The most optimal group of 4 to get the Big Ten to 20 is probably Notre Dame + Stanford and UNC + UVA. That’s probably the most robust group of brands and markets; plants a flag in San Fran while getting into the Mid-Atlantic.
A slightly less optimal group would be Notre Dame and UNC + UVA + Duke if UNC required Duke to be paired with them. Dropping Stanford for Duke reduces West Coast exposure and removes SF market exposure.
Note: this leads to a possible 22 team scenario though: If the Big Ten tries to grab UNC/UVA in 2032 and they require Duke, the Big Ten would be at 19 schools.
The Big Ten could spend 2-3 years trying to convince ND to join, and then if ND still turns the Big Ten down, could grab another school to move to 20 (Washington or Stanford or Ga Tech or whoever; I’d probably lean Washington if the Big Ten isn’t considering non-AAUs like Miami or FSU).
So the Big Ten could theoretically go to 20 with UNC, UVA, Duke, Washington while waiting for ND (+ Stanford). I don’t see the Big Ten ever going above 20 without ND and it’s questionable as to whether we’d go above 18 without ND.
I do think the Big Ten would take UNC/UVA as a pair without even a second thought, so 18 is possible without ND.
Note on Oregon, I think they have a timer. If Oregon doesn’t get into the Big Ten in the next couple of years, I see them losing AAU by end of decade and the point will be moot.
LikeLike
Either way, the broader point is, we’re basically nearing the endgame of realignment.
I think Big Ten and SEC will likely see “finalization” of membership in the early 2030s depending on what happens with UNC, FSU, Clemson, UVA, Miami, Ga Tech, Va Tech and the rest.
LikeLike
If being over a decade away counts as “nearing,” then I agree. But major changes in CFB (professionalization, CFP structure, etc.) could keep driving it. At some point having just 2 megaconferences (24+) like the NFL (but larger) may be the model.
Under the current financial model, megaconferences don’t make sense to me so it’s waiting on ND and the ACC members.
LikeLike
Endgame of “expansion”, yes
But, at some point, it wouldn’t be that surprising if teams start getting kicked out of the B1G and the SEC.
Outside of bringing in Notre Dame, there’s no way to generate larger slices of the revenue pie for members of the B1G.
Every time a recent recession has hit (2001, 2008, 2020), there’s been subsequent round of conference realignment a few years later.
What happens if a recession hits and there’s no schools to add to conferences that justify expansion financially?
LikeLike
Outside of Notre Dame, I don’t think there are any schools that would give the other Big Ten schools a bump in tv money so every other addition would be for other reasons, either demographics or travel partners.
Oregon and especially Washington wouldn’t count as travel partners to USC and UCLA. They aren’t really that close to ease mid-week travel for non revenue spots. So IMO Cal and Stanford are the only options there. If USC and UCLA can make it the travel work, Cal has no chance. If travel costs and time are too much, does only one of Stanford or Cal fix that or do they need both.
UNC and Duke would be taken in a second. If the Big Ten only stays at 20, I can see Notre Dame, Stanford, UNC and Duke being ideal 20. The question I have though are the demographics of UVA, Georgia Tech and Miami too important to the Big Ten to leave them out even though they would be a money drain on the other schools. If that’s the case, a 24 team Big Ten could happen with Cal being added. That question won’t be answered until the 2030s.
LikeLike
I don’t see UVA getting left out of any Mid-Atlantic scenarios. It’s either going to be UNC + UVA or UNC + UVA + Duke. Duke is the one that’s in question (based on lack of any sort of football brand/separate market), but it’s possible the UNC/Duke rivalry brings them in alongside UNC/UVA. Solidifies the North Carolina market in the same was UCLA consolidates LA/South California with USC.
I’m pretty confident that based on the leaks we saw when Maryland was added (and UVA openly coming out and committing to the ACC) that the Big Ten originally considered Maryland + UVA as the #13 + #14 pair.
When UVA said no, Big Ten went to Rutgers.
Georgia Tech, I used to think would be certain to get an invite, but now I lean against it. I don’t think they really bring much market share of Georgia despite being in Atlanta.
The Big Ten is the #1 conference in every market it’s present in; I don’t see that changing.
The lone exceptions may be Miami (or Florida State) because of how gigantic Florida’s market is and that those are major brands in parts of Florida as well as national brands. But neither is AAU and there’s no guarantee either would be in 10 years.
I don’t see a spot for Georgia Tech at this point.
LikeLike
I mean just personally, I’d much rather the Big Ten takes Washington or Miami or Florida State over Georgia Tech if it comes down to #20 and ND says no (after UNC/UVA/Duke are added for #17-19).
I just don’t like the idea of playing a distant 2nd fiddle to Atlanta. Atlanta is as SEC as Chicago is Big Ten at this point.
LikeLike
I personally could care less about the B10 not being #1 in Atlanta when the B10 will be top dog in the 3 biggest metros in the country, 5 of the top 7, (and 10 of the top 16 if the B10 is smart enough to add UW and the Bay Area schools).
LikeLike
Stanford is a lock if ND doesn’t join as #20.
Outside of that, Cal isn’t coming.
LikeLike
Zeek:
Refer to that “Oh the Places You Will Go” post by Frank which noted that 9/14 original B10 schools have more than 1% of their alumni base in metro Atlanta while only 4/14 original B10 schools have more than 1% of their alumni base in Miami/SFL. That places
Atlanta in that second tier with Boston, Dallas, Denver, Seattle (behind the first tier of NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, and Bay Area where all original B10 schools have more than 1% of their alums; in some cases, much more). It’s a strong argument for adding the Bay Area schools as well.
LikeLike
Yeah but you’re getting a completely different situation with Miami and Georgia Tech in their respective cities.
Miami has significant t-shirt fan support in South Florida. There’s a lot of non-college grads there providing t-shirt fan support.
Georgia Tech’s t-shirt fan support is pretty minimal in Atlanta.
It’s why Miami is more “obtainable” than Atlanta even with much less Big Ten alums there.
LikeLike
LSU played GA Tech in the Peach Bowl twice in the 2000s and Miami once. After interacting with fans from both schools, I came to the conclusion that GA Tech is a public school that acts like a private school, and Miami is a private school that acts like a public school.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a good way to view it Alan.
LikeLike
The question isn’t does Georgia Tech deliver the Atlanta market; it doesn’t. The question is does Georgia Tech plus all the alumni from Big Ten schools deliver the Atlanta market or enough of it to convince broadcasters. Georgia is a growing state. The Big Ten may not want to be shut out there either.
Once Notre Dame decides, the Big Ten and SEC are going to have much different priorities with expansion. I don’t think there will be much interest in expanding outside of the states of North Carolina and Virginia and they may only want the flag ships or nothing at all. The SEC is pretty much a football conference only. The Big Ten has other considerations and building a pipeline to the growing population centers in the south may be a bigger priority especially since they have been shutout of Texas. College sports are not just a money maker but also a huge marketing arm of the university to bring in students. One of the big goals of a university is turning students into successful alumni who give big donations. I am sure someone somewhere is crunching the numbers of how many prospect students will go to Big Ten schools and what percentage will eventually give back by adding conference members in Georgia and Florida. Add that to television money and I am sure there is a threshold for those additions. I don’t know if either Miami or Georgia Tech cross that threshold.
LikeLike
I just don’t see it for Georgia Tech.
There is nowhere near enough Big Ten alums + Georgia Tech fans/alums in Atlanta to make that work. That will remain an SEC town with like 90% SEC mindshare.
Miami or Florida State on the other hand would absolutely work.
Miami has enough residual fan support in South Florida + Big Ten alums to deliver Miami to Ft. Lauderdale to Palm Beach.
Florida State is 2nd to UF across the state but has enough fan support across the state to deliver the whole state.
I don’t see the value for Georgia Tech other than just providing visits for Big Ten schools to Atlanta.
Is that worth it?
I just don’t see it. I’d rather take Washington which gives you the largest state outside of NC and VA in play and a top 15 market in Seattle.
So yeah I think if non-AAUs are on the table, Miami (and FSU though I think they’re an SEC lock) are possible.
Washington above GA Tech imo though if we had to pull the trigger on #20 without ND.
LikeLike
Psuhockey, since you appreciate the potential of the the Atlanta TV market, let me ask you a hypothetical about Big Ten hockey. What would you think about adding the University of Toronto as a hockey only member, like ND is? Considerations:
1. Toronto would add the third largest metro area in the US/Canada to the Big Ten Network – smaller than LA but larger than Chicago. Also, the Province of Ontario has a population of 14.6 million with 75% living within 100 miles of the US border and all of them are hockey fans.
2. U of T would be the largest school in the Big Ten – 65,600 students – and the Times academic ranking has them at #18 in the world, between Ivy Leaguers # 17 Columbia and # 19 Cornell.
3. Canadian schools do give athletic scholarships but they are limited to tuition only. However, Canadian schools can give more aid (room and board, etc.) IF the sport generates enough revenue to cover the additional payouts. My hunch is that the enhanced BTN viewership in Canada would cover those costs and more.
4. U of T has played some exibitional hockey vs US teams. I recall they played Ohio State a few years ago. Buckeyes clobbered ’em.
LikeLike
I LOVE the idea of adding several Canadian schools for hockey! Then eventually add Toronto for other sports after they upgrade their sports.
LikeLike
Would require a rule change I believe. Last I knew only Division II and III membership is available to foreign schools. I do know they opened the door to Mexican schools recently.
Single sport Division I exemption in sports with lower counts like hockey would be easier to push I suspect
LikeLike
1. Toronto would be fantastic from a market perspective. Large, safe, very international city.
2. The UT is in a great part of town, integrated with the city. It has a wonderful campus.
The school is huge, and academically, UT is the equal of any US university. It’s big in research too. it’s AAU.
3. However, universities here exist to educate. Canadians simply do not look at sports as a big-business income generator. They’re not going to beef up sports to compete.
4. The equivalent for semi-professional aspiring athletes is the Junior Hockey system which is well established and part of the Canadian culture. It’s not the university system. If you’re playing hockey at a Canadian university, you’re doing it as an extracurricular to your academics.
5. Scholarships for university are nice, but tuition for Canadians at UT is about $5,000 USD. It’s not quite the payoff it might be at US universities.
6. FWIW, the Big Ten Network is already available here. I get it and I’m on the west coast, nowhere near the Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
Would require a rule change I believe. Last I knew only Division II and III membership is available to foreign schools.
That’s a rule change that I imagine would be jettisoned by lunchtime if there were any serious consideration of adding Canadian teams. I agree, adding Toronto for hockey is an intriguing idea.
LikeLike
I am not sure how popular college hockey is in Toronto with all the junior leagues there. Is there enough people interested to for the BTN to succeed in Toronto?
LikeLike
Hockey at the Canadian unis is at the Div3/intramural level and gets about that much fan support.
So no, Toronto is far from realistic for anything.
LikeLike
“Hockey at the Canadian unis is at the Div3/intramural level and gets about that much fan support.”
Same is true in the US. Hockey is a club level sport at Purdue, for example, and has very little fan support. However if they were to elevate to Division 1 like Penn State did and played Michigans and Notre Dames, they’d draw a lot more support. And a Canadian school playing damned Yankees would further enhance the appeal for the Canucks.
There are two Canadian universities in the AAU – Toronto and McGill University in Montreal. Both would be great hockey-only additions to the Big Ten. Both are the flagship universities of their provinces. Using the Times world academic rankings, they would fit like this in the US: Toronto # 10 between Penn and UCLA; McGill # 20 between Cal-San Diego and Georgia Tech.
In population the Montreal metro area would rank # 15 between Detroit and Seattle. The population of Quebec is 8.5 million and 60% of Canada’s population live in either Ontario or Quebec.
Interesting factoid about McGill – They claim to be the birthplace of football, basketball and hockey.
https://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/features/birth-3-sports
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
GT brings Atlanta the same way UMD brings DC, RU brings NYC, and Stanford brings SF. The physical location makes it count as in the footprint. It doesn’t mean the people there will care about the games or want BTN, but they will be forced to pay the footprint rate if it’s included in their TV package.
LikeLike
Colin,
But it most definitely isn’t club/DIII level at the schools with varsity teams. It is a revenue sport for Minnesota and others. 12 B10 players went in the NHL draft this year, including 4 in the first round. Canadian college hockey is not at that level – those guys are in the juniors.
It would be a terrible idea to bring those teams in.
LikeLike
Outside of Notre Dame, I don’t think there are any schools that would give the other Big Ten schools a bump in tv money so every other addition would be for other reasons, either demographics or travel partners.
Whenever you see the words “travel partner,” it means the proposal will not happen. Demographics are just a proxy for TV dollars. No conference voluntarily expands to lose money.
LikeLike
It depends on whether USC and UCLA can make it work for all their athletes including the non revenue sports. If they can, then there is no reason for the Big Ten to expand out west as Stanford and Cal do not add more money for every other Big Ten team.
Also if only additions that will add money to all Big Ten teams will be considered than its Notre Dame and no one else and the conference stops at 17 teams.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA sought and accepted Big Ten invitations knowing no other Pac-12 schools were coming. I expect the Big Ten to work with them creatively on scheduling. I do not expect much sympathy if they say later on, “Travel is worse than we realized. Please add Western schools to help us.”
Also if only additions that will add money to all Big Ten teams will be considered than its Notre Dame and no one else and the conference stops at 17 teams.
Conferences tend to evaluate additions in pairs, because odd numbers are awkward. Notre Dame with any imaginable 18th school is a net positive, even if the 18th school on its own would be a negative.
LikeLike
He didn’t exclude demographics.
Every Big Ten team will take a haircut if it means the Big Ten secures North Carolina and Virginia.
They’re smart. They think in 50-100 year terms.
$5 million more per team for 10 years is not going to outweigh adding one of the 4 growth areas of the country to the Big Ten (especially since this is a zero sum game and you’re down 2-1 to the SEC in ownership of those areas).
The Big Ten presidents will go as hard after UNC as they would ND. Obviously I’d assume the SEC will as well to try to block out the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The other thing is, adding a Western school does not improve the travel for USC/UCLA all that much. Let’s say the Big Ten adds Notre Dame and Stanford, and the two L.A. teams play the Cardinal in football every year. It’s a difference of just one road game every two years. The Big Ten would have to add a bunch of Western teams to change the travel profile significantly, and that is simply not going to happen.
LikeLike
I agree, and I think Washington is more likely to be added to the West if 3 are added in the East and ND says no.
And we know Washington adds nothing in terms of travel considerations; it’s a market+brand play if they come given they’re not that much closer to USC/UCLA than Nebraska.
LikeLike
Every Big Ten team will take a haircut if it means the Big Ten secures North Carolina and Virginia. They’re smart. They think in 50-100 year terms.
That’s not taking a haircut. It’s just extending the time horizon over which the addition must eventually be justified. I am not sure if they are looking out 100 years, but they are certainly looking beyond 10.
LikeLike
Marc,
I am talking about non revenue sports especially the midweek games. Travel for football games is insignificant since there are not many of them and they occur primarily on the weekends.
LikeLike
@Marc
I think UNC/UVA/Duke would probably be something of a permanent slight haircut financially.
But the value to the conference and member schools in gaining control of the whole Mid-Atlantic as a recruiting ground, as another large region where the conference has mindshare among t-shirt fans, etc. just outweighs the cost of giving out more slices of a pie that might not expand quite enough.
At the end of the day, the demographics concerns are why the Big Ten schools would pay that price of adding shares to a pie that may not expand enough to cover the same pro-rata shares.
LikeLike
I imagine the B10 will schedule smartly and have all the non-football teams for each season (or each LA school) fly out to the same pair of Midwestern/Eastern B10 schools over a long weekend instead of doing something crazy like scheduling a game in LA on a weekend, a game out East midweek, then a game in LA on the weekend.
LikeLike
I am talking about non revenue sports especially the midweek games. Travel for football games is insignificant since there are not many of them and they occur primarily on the weekends.
Even for the non-revenue sports, the travel difference if you add one more West Coast school is not that significant. You would need to add a bunch of them, and that is not happening. No conference expands to make life easier for gymnasts and swimmers, and I mean no disrespect to those sports. It’s just how it is.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
I agree with you about only ND increasing revenue noticeably. UNC seems more like a breakeven, especially as BTN subscribers become less important financially (plus any increase is split at least 18 ways).
By distance UO and UW aren’t great travel partners for USC and UCLA, but they are by time zone. That’s important midweek. And WA is #13 in population and rapidly growing. AZ is #14 and also growing fast, but the wrong school is in Phoenix. OR is #27 and growing, but is half the size of VA.
#9 NC and #12 VA are the 2 largest states not in the B10 or SEC. Both are growing rapidly as well, so the state demographics are great. UNC is a great way to tap NC, but the value of UVA in VA is lower. VT is more popular in much of the state and is larger, but UVA is the flagship and academic heavyweight and former rival of UMD.
Personally, I don’t think the B10 would skip over VA to get to NC. Especially with UMD and their rivalries with UVA, and UVA’s strong ties to UNC. The UNC-Duke rivalry is valuable, and Duke is a great school, but Duke adds nothing for football. I’m not sure UNC + Duke would fly with the B10 unless UVA said no.
GA is only slightly larger than NC, though Atlanta is a much larger market. I think GT is only a stretch candidate, and then only if Miami is also included. GT’s brand is just too weak to justify reaching that far into SEC territory otherwise.
I am not a fan of adding even an AAU Miami due to distance and culture. Obviously FL access is very valuable, though, and if Miami starts winning they are a valuable brand. Unless the B10 feels a need to get to 24, I don’t see GT or Miami fitting in.
LikeLike
Yeah Duke at least has the location advantage and basketball and rivalry with UNC compared to other “basketball schools” in this situation.
Extra visits to North Carolina and further consolidation of that market are valuable.
Duke alone won’t generate the revenue to cover its share but in conjunction with say UNC/UVA (and even Washington in a move to 20), I can see it working.
Even without ND, I can see the argument for UNC, UVA, Duke, Washington in a move to 20 if the Big Ten wants to stay out of SEC territories (regardless of Miami attaining AAU or FSU or Ga Tech). Let’s assume Oregon loses AAU before 2032, so Big Ten considers Washington alone.
That’s the 3 next largest states not in the Big Ten or SEC and control of those markets/regions.
All are growing strongly and wealthy areas of the country.
It all comes down to what happens with Clemson/FSU and whether they force UNC to consider bolting the ACC. If UNC bolts and requires Duke/UVA to come in tow, I don’t see how the Big Ten turns that down.
If they require NC State as well, then yeah I can see the Big Ten saying no.
LikeLike
I mostly agree, so I’ll just note that adding UNC and UVA doesn’t necessarily control any markets.
VT in the SEC would be just as powerful as, if not more so than, a B10 UVA. Neither schools is close to the primary market (DC) or in a major market. Richmond might favor one of them and Norfolk the other.
Likewise, NCSU in the SEC would probably become the top football program in VA over UNC in the B10. Both schools are in the same area, and neither is close to Charlotte. UNC has the lead in T-shirt fans now, but most of that is driven by basketball.
Those states are likely to be split, like KY, SC, GA and FL are now (or IA for a B10 split).
LikeLike
I can see the argument for Va Tech especially given that their brand became stronger than UVA for football in Virginia due to Beamer (and because it’s the larger state school), but I don’t agree on that about UNC/NC State.
UNC has dominated that rivalry historically though it’s been about even of late.
And UNC has traditionally been a much stronger recruiting for football as well; pretty much always in the top 5-6 of the ACC while NC State has trended in the lower half.
They typically win head-to-head recruiting battles against NC State.
Why would that change if UNC goes to the Big Ten while NC State goes to the SEC?
I think UNC’s prestige as the flagship is much stronger in NC than UVA’s is in Virginia.
NC State has never had a Beamer/Va Tech like run to establish them as the bigger football state school.
LikeLike
That’s also why I doubt the SEC would take NC State if UNC/Duke go to the Big Ten.
Va Tech I can see the SEC considering strongly since it’d give them good reach into the Mid-Atlantic and there’s a pretty strong football tradition there as far as Mid-Atlantic schools go.
And there’s the argument that Va Tech would be the stronger pull in Virginia.
But I don’t see NC State as a part of that unless the SEC feels the need to absolutely have a school there.
NC State is a clear second in football brand/recruiting there and miles behind in mindshare due to the basketball brand of UNC.
LikeLike
z33k,
All of that is true.
There is very much a UM/MSU vibe in NC academically, and athletically (just with a king in hoops not football).
The SEC is more football focused. That may be enough to get NCSU to follow suit. And if they do, and get one good coach in there, it could easily snowball (Beamer was all VT needed). UNC will always prioritize hoops, and fans in NC will be slightly less excited to play B10 football schools than SEC ones. All it takes is NCSU fans getting energized and having a little success for that program to become dominant. And since NCSU is larger, it will be cranking out more alumni quickly.
I believe the SEC’s football focus would elevate the view of NCSU. It’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
That’s a fair opinion and a viable scenario.
I agree on the issue of people in North Carolina (and perhaps Virginia) trending more naturally towards being SEC fans which creates an opportunity there for Va Tech and NC State.
It’s probably just going to be much more difficult for NC State to get that Beamer run in the SEC than in the Big East/ACC where Va Tech was pretty much top 2-3 in their conference for 20 years.
I tend to think UNC would have more football success in the Big Ten, especially if they’re coming with UVA/Duke and have them as rivals.
LikeLike
I think UNC may have more easy success in the B10, but that will make them more likely to settle for mild success in my opinion. Be good enough to win 6-7 games most years and focus on basketball.
NCSU will be more pressured to try to actually be their best. Just like Urban Meyer pushed many schools to up their recruiting game in the B10, NCSU being in the SEC would raise the expectations for NCSU higher than the B10 would for UNC.
LikeLike
z33k,
I also lean towards minimal expansion, but that sentiment is far from universal.
I don’t see value in Cal either, unless they are required to keep UCLA and UCLA is required to keep USC. But others think at least 6 from the P12 (4 from CA + UO + UW) is a given, it’s just delayed by negotiating over buy-in schedules. Others are in-between (like the faux Ivy League plan).
Losing AAU might hurt UO with the B10, but I think their lack of market and smaller fan base is a bigger concern. UO had a spike under Kelley with their uniforms and winning a lot. Now lots of people wear alternate uniforms and UO doesn’t win as much. Losing their brand value would hurt a lot.
LikeLike
Not everyone wears ugly uniforms. But Oregon would fit in with the Big 10 and Maryland!
LikeLike
They aren’t all necessarily ugly (it’s in the eye of the beholder), but many schools have been pushed by Nike (and others) into wearing alternates. It’s far from unique.
LikeLike
The last time the University of Toronto was proposed for B1G membership the University of Buffalo was also mentioned. UB is in the MAC (Div 1 all sports) and also plays hockey. It is AAU, and it is a rather large state school, about 32,000 students. I don’t think it is land grant, that is the ag school and Cornell.
In fact, I think someone mentioned Toronto and Buffalo as a pair.
LikeLike
Bob, we’re talking B1G membership for hockey only, like Notre Dame in hockey and Johns Hopkins in lacrosse. The foremost advantage being the BTN would go to in-footprint rates. Canada has long, cold winters and all they have to keep themselves occupied is sit indoors and watch hockey.
LikeLike
They have the NHL and the CHL for that. Plus international hockey – you betcha they stream European hockey too.
LikeLike
ESPN looks like the favorite for a new P-10 deal. The article cites our new best friend on the West Coast, John Canzano.
https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-seems-to-be-the-favorite-for-the-pac-12s-media-rights-while-whispers-about-an-acc-partnership-continue-to-grow.html
For those subscribers to The Athletic, Stewart Mandel opines on how a B-12/P-10 merger could work.
LikeLike
I thought maybe I’d see people discussing this on here, but I don’t see anything. There are a couple of twitter accounts: @flugempire and @Genetics56. Both had tweets about USC to the Big Ten before it actually happened. Both are separately claiming to have insider sources at the Big Ten and to have at least some knowledge of their though process on expansion. These are separate guys, but I’m seeing some overlap in what they’re saying. Neither one seem to be pushing any kind of particular agenda or promoting any particular school. If they are legit, and that’s a big if and of course I have no idea if they are, but if they are, then this is approximately what’s going to happen.
Notre Dame is going to need to decide in the next 80 days or so if they want to join the Big Ten. This is because the Pac 12 schools are going to reach a deal of some kind somewhere and will have to sign a grant of rights. This is important because supposedly Notre Dame would prefer to partner with Stanford in joining the Big Ten. Apparently beyond Stanford, the Big Ten is not going to add any other Pac 12 schools.
Next is the ACC. Obviously there are legal issues there so this could take some time. Apparently the SEC is strongly interested in, at a minimum, UNC, Clemson, and Florida State. Also probably Virginia. The Big Ten reportedly highly values Miami and Georgia Tech, both for their markets and their academic profile and potential for football and recruiting.
So if everything goes according to plan, both the SEC and Big Ten go to 20.
The Big Ten adds:
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
Miami
The SEC adds:
Texas
Oklahoma
North Carolina
Virginia
Florida State
Clemson
And that’s the end of it. Both conferences would probably make well over $100 million per year at that point, and be fairly evenly matched.
The leftover schools would form another conference or two that would probably get seats at the expanded playoff table, but the Big Ten and SEC would dominate.
Presumably this would be sufficient and there would be no need to create some kind of giant singular super league of the very best programs. These two 20 team conferences would contain pretty much all the most valuable programs, and would be making enough money to keep those programs satisfied.
I don’t know if this is all true, but it seems fairly logical and seems like it could work.
And of course, just because they plan it this way in 2022 doesn’t mean it ultimately ends up looking exactly like this in the end.
LikeLike
Greg Flugaur talks to his imaginary “Big Ten Man.” Every now and then he guesses right. Mainly he seems to try to pick fights with the Dude of West Virginia, who is often wrong and misinterprets things, but does talk to real people.
LikeLike
As a rule, these “alignment personalities” that claim sources (unlike say Frank) are typically just shooting from the hip.
Maybe he knows somebody at the Big Ten offices, but even the media people at the Big Ten and Fox weren’t told about the USC/UCLA move until just before it happened.
I doubt that many Big Ten ADs knew about it until it was imminent either. This is a situation that is played close to the hand by the presidents and commissioner and lawyers/media execs.
A few ADs like Gene Smith and maybe a few others knew.
Hard to trust that any of these realignment personalities have sources that connected, especially when they give off tons of wild scenarios and most don’t pan out.
ND appears to be comfortable waiting until the next CFP contract is decided and perhaps as late as the early/mid-2030s when the ACC situation is sorted out; that’s when they may be forced to make a choice.
As of now, they don’t really have to feel forced into a decision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could have picked USC/UCLA to the Big 10 if I wanted. It was obvious to me that they would be thinking about it. Most people scoffed at it, but it clearly made some financial sense. I didn’t really think it would happen, but it was a possibility.
LikeLike
Yeah I mean I thought it would clearly happen even after the “Alliance” was proposed because there was no financial logic behind alliance scheduling.
You have too many schools in the ACC/Pac-12 that nobody in the Big Ten wants to schedule as compared to a 9th game so it was always going to be more sensible for the Big Ten to just go for 2-6 from the Pac-12.
I mean I literally wrote a couple times last year to focus on USC/UCLA around mid-2022 due to everything lining up (Pac-12 GOR being up in 2024, Big Ten media deal being signed in mid-2022, etc.).
I felt pretty confident that it’d happen though it still feels a bit surprising to actually see it being just USC/UCLA. Now though it sort of makes sense.
LikeLike
Andy,
Greg Flugaur has been posting info from his source (BTM – Big Ten Man) for years. He was talking about USC to the B10 last fall/winter. But he also had lots of prior talk of other potential realignment that never happened, so you can’t count on anything he says happening. I know nothing about the other person you mention. It’s key to remember that even if they do have a source, it’s one person’s opinion. It takes a lot of presidents agreeing for anything to actually happen. Many things will be discussed and considered along the way. Much of it will be plausible, like this this concept.
Of course the B10 wants ND to decide soon, but ND can’t leave the ACC without permission until 2036. Even if ND said yes tomorrow, they’d have to convince the entire ACC to let them go. The P12 will have the basic outline of a new TV deal very soon. It may take some time after that for the lawyers to finish the details and for everyone to actually sign it. The real question is what sort of GOR ESPN forces them into, especially if the ACC/P12 partnership happens. Will the P12 schools be stuck until 2036ish too? Might Stanford drag their feet on signing anything? It’s always possible they refuse to be committed long term, or demand the B10 make them an offer now or never. I just don’t know that you can force an 80-day deadline on ND – they don’t respond well to outside pressure (unless maybe from NBC).
Is Stanford ND’s top partner choice? It makes sense they’d want access to SF regularly and to maintain their (fairly young) rivalry in conference so Navy is the only OOC rivalry they want to keep. ND sees them as an academic peer, too. But having both USC and UCLA gets ND into CA every year anyway, so I’m not sure how much more Stanford helps them. That said, they don’t have any other rival that’s a B10 candidate (Navy is not an option). They can go everywhere else with OOC games.
I fully believe the B10 would otherwise stop adding P12 schools, but many are convinced it has to happen. I think they’d already have offers if the B10 wanted more P12 schools, plus I think the B10 prefers that the P12 survive as a P5.
The ACC schools is where this gets foggy for me. I can see some SEC interest in UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, GT, Clemson, FSU and Miami. All of those schools might make sense in various ways and packages. I don’t know how highly they value the football schools because I haven’t seen estimates of what value they would bring. I don’t think the SEC adds them to lose money, but maybe they would do it to block the B10 from key markets.
Likewise, I’m not sure the value GT or Miami bring to the B10. Especially a non-AAU Miami that hasn’t been winning all that much. How much of the FL TV market do they bring to a TV deal? I assume GT would officially bring Atlanta like RU brought NYC, and Miami at least brings Miami. Are those markets enough to not lose money on them? I don’t know. They seem much more likely if UVA and UNC also join than as the only ACC schools, and joining the AAU would certainly help Miami’s case to the presidents.
Long term, I’m not convinced this prevents the formation of NFL-lite. The TV money is for more and more consolidation of brands. Eventually it will push football-only conferences so the lesser brands can be dropped (Vandy, RU, etc.) and the rest paid more. But it will be key to keep the whole country included, so you can’t leave out the pacific northwest (UW, UO) or the southwest (ASU?), or the mountains (CU, UU/BYU). The main trouble spot is the northeast, but they’ll probably hope for PSU + ND to cover that sufficiently. The other is the mid-Atlantic, but they’ll likely retain UNC for that, maybe VT as well.
LikeLike
Do you think Big Ten football schools and SEC football schools will ever see eye-to-eye enough to agree to that though?
I’m not sure an NFL-lite would work out well enough; if you’re going that route you’re cutting down like a half the college football fans in the country.
Would they stick around to see that?
At least consolidating most of the major brands in the SEC and Big Ten preserves a ton of other large schools/states with schools.
And you would presumably have some other lesser conferences mixed in there with access to a playoff.
I think the pushback against an NFL-lite would be extreme; it’d be like Super League in Europe. How likely are the other Big Ten and SEC schools to go along with that; let alone the philosophical differences between say Michigan/ND and Alabama/Georgia/Clemson on how to run football.
LikeLike
TV’s plan would be to pick up more casual fans as they lose affiliated fans. They will make tons from betting and fantasy. It’s a horrible idea with no consideration for the long term impacts on the schools, and I think it would do wonderfully for a while and then fall apart. And then the power football schools would have lost that donor connection sports used to provide, and their endowments will suffer.
Most fans already don’t care about the actual schools. OSU has a whole lot of fans that have no actual OSU connection beyond geography. How’s that different from the Browns, except for the winning games part? These are the people pushing for a bigger playoff, no cupcake games, dropping the lesser programs, etc. But money always wins out, so eventually they’ll get their way.
TV will find a way to transition things slowly enough to keep the big brand son board. It’s amazing what $200M per year will do to sway opinions. Especially if athletes become paid, and the programs become more separated from the actual schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scary thing is, there will probably be people that suggest it if not already.
But man, that will be such an ugly split off and it’d probably result in fracturing across all sports, not just football.
So yeah, it could work temporarily for a few years due to the excitement/newness, but then it’s hard to see that sustained.
Champions League works because everyone in Europe watches it since hundreds of teams theoretically have a shot at it every year.
NCAA Tournament works the same way.
A Super League in any of these scenarios sounds like it’d work for a couple years but then burn itself out as lots of fanbases tune out…
LikeLike
I have no clue if these guys are believable or not but at least there is some logic to what they say about the B10:
Besides ND (which obviously brings a ton of brand value), the other 3 schools are located in big metros with some (Miami) to a lot (Atlanta) to a ton (Bay Area) of B10 alums. Stanford and Miami also have been good at football in the recent past though are obviously small privates, and Stanford and GTech have academic cachet while I believe Miami is following USC’s path on the academic side. B10 alums and big markets were enough to add RU and UMD even though they obviously are not big brands. In fact, ever since UNL, the B10 has only been adding schools in big/massive markets with a ton of B10 alums. It’s possible that the extra fundraising boost B10 schools are getting by visiting these markets with a lot of their alums means real money.
Note that none of UNC/Duke/UVa are in a metro with a ton of B10 alums. (. . .so is UW; also CU and the DFW schools but they won’t be added now).
LikeLike
Another thing to keep in mind:
These big metros have a disproportionate amount of the upper-middle class families who are willing to pay a premium in OOS tuition for their kiddie to go to the school of their dreams (or whatever). Including the best academic uni in that metro in your conference probably bumps up that number. And as I noted before, OOS tuition adds up to pretty big money.
LikeLike
As I said, I have no idea if these guys are right. Their theories seem fairly plausible. And maybe they do talk to people and hear things, but the only things they could really be hearing are plans and opinions of what people would like to do in the future, which by no means guarantees they’ll actually happen.
The part of the rumor that strikes me as the most true is the idea that the Big Ten and SEC are only probably going to go to 18 or 20 schools. I always thought 24 or more schools didn’t make much sense. There are only so many schools that are additive. And also, once you get beyond a certain size it no longer really functions as a conference because schools would go so long between playing each other.
As for NFL-lite, it seems to me if, in particular, the SEC can get to 18 or 20 schools that includes almost entirely top 30 level programs, and it’s making well over $100 million per year per school, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of motivation to tear that down and start over. There’s only a handful of SEC teams that wouldn’t end up in the “NFL-lite” league anyway. The Big Ten has a few more weak football programs than the SEC, but still, a Big Ten with USC, Notre Dame, Miami, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, WIsconsin, etc. would seem to have a lot of heft and would already be pretty darn close to an NFL-lite at that point.
To get ot an NFL-Lite you’d need broad agreement from all involved. It couldn’t just be Ohio State, Alabama, LSU go start a new league. They’d need to bring in at least 24 if not 32 schools to make it work. And I’m not sure there are that many who would think it was worth it. Especially if those schools are already making gobs of money in the super-SEC and super-Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yeah the NFL-lite concept doesn’t make as much sense if the Big Ten and SEC have all the brands with few laggards.
Even laggards in the Big Ten are giant schools; Rutgers, Indiana, etc. are still schools with 40k+ enrollment pumping out tons of Big Ten grads.
I’m just skeptical that a Super League concept would work in college athletics with all the other stuff involved.
An NFL-lite could kill the product as well; why would fans of the rest of the schools watch. At least if you keep giant state schools from most states involved, their fans will care.
If you make it just 24-32 schools, that’s taking away a lot more of the country than say 40-44 in the Big Ten+SEC + another 30-40 schools outside that.
LikeLike
It will kill the product, but it’ll happen anyway. TV will wring every penny out of it they can, then drop it like a hot potato. The schools will blindly follow the money in their greed, then be left to pick up the pieces.
For all they know, soccer may be the clear #1 sport in 50 years anyway.
LikeLike
Andy,
Schools never have enough money. All it takes is a few changes to the landscape and they will be hunting for more.
What if courts decide athletes are employees? What if actual Title IX compliance gets forced? What if CTE becomes a public health priority? What if fans are turned off by realignment and/or the CFP structure? What if CFB reaches peak ratings and TV tells conferences their rights aren’t growing in value anymore? What if pay TV (including streaming) loses sports viewers due to the incessant commercial breaks required by the broadcasters? What if a good way to monetize ads in asynchronous viewing is discovered, so sports are no longer of special value?
Sure, there is an expanded CFP coming and that will help for a while. And they’ll keep expanding it for more money. And they’ll try to grow international interest (ride the NFL’s coattails). And they’ll try to attract more new fans than they turn off with their changes. But sports keep getting more expensive to run, as facilities and scholarship costs skyrocket. And sports rights are pushing the limits of what TV can afford.
So what happens when the networks tell CFB that to get paid more, they need to drop the deadweight? The same $1.2B that generates $75M for 16 schools could generate $40M for 8 schools and $110M for the other 8. At some point the concept of football-only conferences with unequal revenue distribution may become appealing and even acceptable. That split league would draw better ratings, allowing the networks to pay $1.5B or more instead. Now that’s 8*$40M and 8*$147.5M. And it also makes the CFP more valuable to them, so there’s a bump there as well. And the networks realize they can’t leave areas of the US behind, so they need some of the brands from the remaining leagues as well (UW, UO, etc.), so it’s not just a split of the B10 and SEC.
Some or none of that may happen, but the point is there are a lot of things that might lead to NFL-lite. And once they cross a certain point (maybe we already have with realignment, but I don’t think so yet), there’s no going back.
LikeLike
I suppose it’s possible eventually. But packing most of the power teams into just two conferences and paying them all well over a hundred million dollars per year could potentially keep things on track for a pretty long time.
LikeLike
People had similar thoughts when schools first made $10M. A few years ago, people thought it about $50M. Money is like storage space – you always find a way to use it all and need more.
LikeLike
I made a long post in response to the above comments and it’s not showing up. Maybe it will show up later. I’m not going to retype all of that.
One more thing to add – yes, maybe those two twitter personalities are not good sources, but we should have a better idea very soon. Both are insisting that Notre Dame and Stanford will join the Big Ten within the next 2-3 months. If that happens that would give both of them a lot of credibility. If it doesn’t happen then they lose a lot of credibility. Either way, we’ll know soon.
LikeLike
I have to think both guys are a step or two removed from the real decision-makers, and their sources are just spit-balling. It could still happen: a “spit ball” from a good source can be right sometimes.
The bit about ND losing their leverage in ~80 days seems wrong to me. Notre Dame is going to get a big payday in their next NBC deal. They won’t make Big Ten dollars, but they’ve left money on the table before. Lots of it.
Assuming ND wants to join the Big Ten, the league would accept them any day, even if it meant having 17 schools for a few years. Odd numbers are awkward, but the Big Ten won’t say no, just because they can’t have Stanford at the same time. And how much do the Irish really care about the Cardinal? Brian has already pointed out that Stanford is not a long-term rival of the Irish, the way USC and Navy are.
I am sure the Big Ten’s next TV deals will allow them to re-open the negotiation if conference composition changes. Even the ACC’s lousy deal has that. It’s not as if they cannot get paid if Notre Dame joins after the deal is signed.
LikeLike
ND can’t leave the ACC without permission until 2036. Even if ND said yes tomorrow, they’d have to convince the entire ACC to let them go.
No source I’ve seen states that the ACC has to agree. But Notre Dame would have to pay the conference exit fee and forego its Olympic sports home game TV rights for the length of the current deal.
The entire debate seems to be whether Big Ten money, minus those exit costs, is so compelling that ND simply cannot afford to pass it up anymore — not whether they could join if they wanted to. Clearly the ACC is never going to voluntarily let them off the hook.
LikeLike
Marc,
ND could technically leave, but the GOR is binding for their non-FB sports so it would require permission (thus my statement). People assume ND can buy out of that, but the ACC doesn’t have to let them out. Would ND willing not play televised non-FB games for a decade?
On top of leaving the conference and the associated penalties any ACC member would face for that, ND has some other deals with the ACC. They have the agreement that they can only join the ACC if they join any conference for football before 2036 (not sure which of the legal documents it’s contained in). Finally, they owe the ACC 5 games per year until 2036 (not sure which of the legal documents it’s contained in). I’m not sure what the legal penalties are for violating those latter 2 deals, or if they require approval. Can ND buy their way out, or does the ACC have to approve the buyout?
I haven’t seen real legal analysis of these other deals and what penalties apply to them. Are they both included in the membership exit fee? Is ESPN a party to the 5-games deal? Mostly I see internet commenters discussing these issues, and they so often get the GOR wrong that I don’t trust their opinions on the rest.
LikeLike
ND could technically leave, but the GOR is binding for their non-FB sports so it would require permission (thus my statement).
The publicly available GOR states that if ND (or any member) leaves, the games in the ESPN contract remain the conference’s property. It does not say they cannot leave without permission. It just delimits the consequences if they do.
The exit fee, of course, is the same thing. It doesn’t say you need permission to leave. It says that IF you leave, this is how much it will cost. Maryland didn’t seek permission either. (The exit fee existed at the time, although the grant of rights did not.)
Now, you are right that the full set of contracts is not public, but no school has ever needed a conference to approve its departure. Occam’s Razor says that is not the case for ND. No reporter, even the well informed ones, has ever said so.
LikeLike
I don’t consider leaving with all your non-FB games having to be non-televised for years (10+ now) as a realistic option, so they need the ACC’s permission to exit the GOR. Football is the trivial part.
LikeLike
Notre Dame non-football sports will still be televised if they joins the B1G with USC but not by Fox or BTN. ESPN and maybe ACCN will broadcast these to benefit the ACC. It is up to the B1G to determine if they can take this as a condition of Notre Dame joining before 2036. Probably only the basketball games will have much value. I doubt Notre Dame will be able to buy out the GOR and the numbers from football will have to be huge for the B1G to accept the ESPN/ACC broadcasts for 12 years. The exit fee is fairly low (3x ND payout = $32.4M).
LikeLike
You think the ACC wants ND games broadcast in place of another ACC team getting the coverage? Having to mention that ND is a B10 member, seeing “B10” on the court, mentioning ND’s place in the B10 standings, etc.?
It’s not the B10 that would worry about it, it’s ND. It’s their recruiting that would tank because players don’t see them on TV. The B10 is only worried about their CFB games.
LikeLike
As long as ND brings high ratings, they will get televised by whoever has the rights. ESPN has not passed on a single ND-ACC road game. ESPN/ABC broadcast almost all conferences so yes, I believe ESPN will push a mediocre ACC game to a lower network for a ND-MSU etc. basketball game. Since ND women BB has been highly ranked ESPN would broadcast some of those games to fill in their schedule. ND will still get its road games televised in the Olympic sports (ratings again) even if home games are not. The B1G is not going to schedule multi-team invitationals in South Bend until they have TV rights. The impact on ND recruiting from ACC holding the GOR will be minimal since it does not cover road activity and FOX/BTN will broadcast enough so ND continues to have a TV presence.
LikeLike
No school has ever left its conference with a GOR in place, so we can only guess what the parties would do. The GOR penalty is intended to be so severe that no school could ever pay it. This differs from an exit fee, which many schools have paid. But no school that plays football has ever had a GOR for its basketball rights only. So this is a unique beast.
Formally, ND does not need permission to leave. Maybe the consequences would be so unpalatable that no one would ever do it—which is exactly what the GOR is meant to achieve. But ND gets only about $10m a year from the ACC, which is trivial next to the potential football revenue. They can handle the financial side of it many times over.
Brian is speculating that the ACC would elect to hold onto the rights, but out of spite, would never show a Notre Dame home basketball game. That seems awfully unlikely. The ACC doesn’t decide which games to broadcast. ESPN has the ACC basketball contract, and they will want to show Notre Dame.
LikeLike
ESPN has the ultimate decision, but the ACC will apply significant pressure. They want ACC teams to be shown in scheduled ACC game slots. Depending on how the contract is worded, they might be able to say ND games are not ACC games and so can’t count against the total number of ACC games ESPN agreed to broadcast. They might have to count against the B10 games instead.
And the B10 could give ND a crappy home schedule to make the games less appealing to ESPN. Keep all the good games for the B10 package they sell (but ESPN might have a hoops package).
So does ESPN choose to anger the ACC for some relatively unimportant games? It’s not like ND is a big brand in hoops. They can show more Duke games with Vitale calling them instead. That makes ESPN more money.
LikeLike
You know, if the B10 wanted to go hog-wild in adding major metros with B10 alums that are also big recruiting grounds (for both football and OOS students) with better-to-great demographics as well as forming an academic rival to the Ivy League, the B10 could add, along with ND, Stanford, GTech, and Miami, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVa, BC, and UW. Also Texas and Rice if the Longhorns are willing.
The Big 28. 3 annual rivals still possible. And the B10 still would play every school more often than some SEC schools currently play other SEC schools.
LikeLike
But the Big Ten doesn’t want to do that. Could have easily taken Cal and Stanford with USC/UCLA if wanted both. Right now the conference is apparently focused on the media deal and seeing if ND is interested in coming along.
Big Ten is trying to maximize revenue and demographic reach/national reach imo.
Can’t do that if you go beyond 20 or 22.
Adding 6-8 slices to the pie just makes everyone slices smaller at that point.
LikeLike
It gets really hard to grow the pie when you go beyond 20 schools.
$100 million per school requires $2 billion in annual tv money. It’s why you have to have solid reasons for going to that area.
ND and UNC I can see justifying it; hard to see much more than that.
LikeLike
I agree. 18 to 20 works okay. 24 is quite a stretch and I don’t think it ever goes that far. 28 would be ridiculous.
LikeLike
UNC doesn’t justify it (unless the academic component is worthwhile enough).
With Miami and GTech, it comes down to whether the alumni visits and big markets and OOS recruiting justify it.
LikeLike
There is no evidence the Big Ten wants to be massively underpaid for its sports contracts so that it can claim academic parity with the Ivy League. As z33k has noted, the league could have Stanford and Cal right now if it wanted them. No need to wait for smoke signals from South Bend, if that was the aim.
LikeLike
Unless what ND decides determines whether it is ND+Stanford added or Cal+Stanford added.
LikeLike
“Meanwhile, the additions of USC and UCLA could drive up the Big Ten’s annual rights fee as much as 25 percent compared to what the conference would have otherwise garnered, Front Office Sports reported this week. Per Sports Business Journal, ESPN and NBC are among the companies that have become “more aggressive” in bidding on the conference’s rights in the wake of the move, joining CBS and Amazon as realistic bidders.”
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/07/big-ten-pac-12-media-rights-nfl-sunday-ticket-apple-amazon-espn-plus-price/
LikeLike
You have to be careful with that statement, because the writer misread the situation. Prior FOS reporting had the deal at over $1B for 14, and FOS actually said the new deal might now be worth $1.1-1.25B. Even if you say the deal without USC and UCLA would be $1B, it would need to be $1.14B for 16 schools just to keep the same payout as $1B for 14 schools (+14%). For the per school share to go up by 10-25%, the deal would need to be $1.26-1.43B.
Wilner’s expert said the new pair was worth $200M to the P12’s upcoming TV deal. Presumably they add more value to the B10’s deal since they will play more games against big brands, and the B10 is adding CA access (P12 still has 2 CA schools, and lots of alumni in LA). So a 10% per school bump is very possible, with 25% being a stretch.
USC/UCLA value: per school bump (payout)
$142.9M: 0% ($71.4M)
$150M: 0.6% ($71.9M)
$200M: 5% ($75M)
$250M: 9.4% ($78.1M)
$300M: 13.8% ($81.3M)
$400M: 22.5% ($87.5M)
Of course all of that is based on the 14 being worth exactly $1B, and that’s only the rumored value.
LikeLike
Colin,
You left out an important sentence:
Apple, which was said to have rekindled talks with the Big Ten last week, is no longer a contender.
That reduces the pure streamers to just Amazon. We all thought that was likely to be the case, but it’s good to know it’s true.
LikeLike
Who’d have guessed Y’ALL LIFE would be the kryptonite that brought the mighty SEC crashing down 🎶😵😱😝😤😠🌋…😂
LikeLike
For conversation sake lets assume Notre Dame decides to wait a few years and see how the CFB landscape plays out (NIL, CFB playoffs, ACC GOR, NBC TV, etc.). If they eventually decide a move to the B1G is in their own best interests, who is ND’s preferred plus one? There has been widespread discussion of Stanford, but that’s probably influenced by the recent USC/UCLA news. If ND takes the B1G plunge what team makes the most long term sense for them?
LikeLike
” If they eventually decide a move to the B1G is in their own best interests, who is ND’s preferred plus one? ”
I’ll get hammered for this but I’d take Colorado. AAU, top brand in the Mountain Time Zone, good TV market, rapidly growing metro area and to this day they consider Nebraska as their archrival, not Utah. Colorado also partially “bridges” the gap to LA.
LikeLike
At the moment, it’s clearly Stanford I’d imagine.
It’s a young rivalry though and maybe guaranteed games with USC and UCLA would take care of their need for an annual California visit. Also philosophically, they might want Stanford as an ally with them along with Northwestern as private schools trying to navigate the whole pay to play set of issues.
Realistically, they may just not care that much about Stanford if California visits are taken care of by USC/UCLA.
In a long-term sense they probably want the Big Ten to have a presence in the Southeast of the US too.
Would that be taken care of by UNC or would they want Ga Tech for Atlanta visits or Miami for that rivalry/South Florida visits.
I don’t think they’ll care about it too much though because outside of USC and Navy, they’ve played a lot of Big Ten schools and if the Big Ten has enough national presence; it probably takes care of their needs.
The question is what is enough national presence. Would they want Washington or Stanford, UNC or Ga Tech or Miami, etc.
It’s why they may wait and see what happens to the ACC before making a move.
LikeLike
I firmly believe that the Big Ten isn’t going to want to go past 20. So if you add Notre Dame, that’s only 3 more spots.
Stanford
Miami
Georgia Tech
UNC
Duke
Washington
Cal
Colorado
All of those make some sense. But only have room for 3, because none of them are really additive money-wise. And if you expand beyond 20 the scheduling becomes a mess and you don’t have a cohesive conference.
For the SEC, I think it’s
UNC
Virginia
Florida State
Clemson
Virginia Tech
Duke
That’s about it. Only have room for 4. And honestly, don’t necessarily have to add any. Because none of those are going to add that much to the pie. The pie is already huge with Texas coming in.
LikeLike
I firmly believe that the Big Ten isn’t going to want to go past 20. So if you add Notre Dame, that’s only 3 more spots.
The logic makes sense to me, but I remember when people said 16-team conferences don’t work.
LikeLike
Well, we really have no evidence that they do yet. The WAC16 fell apart. The ACC15 hasn’t gone all that well. 16 seems likely to work for the B10 and SEC, but we haven’t actually seen it in practice. Maybe the travel and loss of rivalries will matter. Maybe TV rights will lose value and the conferences will split up later.
LikeLike
I just think it’s interesting that most people now take 16 for granted and talk about 18, 20, 22, or 24, as potential endpoints. Conferences have failed at different sizes. There is no evidence at all that 16 is a significant number.
LikeLike
Well the evidence is that no conference 16 or larger has stayed together for very long.
LikeLike
Well the evidence is that no conference 16 or larger has stayed together for very long.
There are so few of them that the sample size is meaningless.
LikeLike
Great West
Lone Star
Big East
WAC
Southern version I circa 1933-SEC seceded
Southern version II circa 1953-ACC seceded
The MVC has also split/or hemorraged members a couple of times without getting to 16.
MVC version I 1928-Big 6 later Big 8 seceded
MVC version II 1970s-UL, Memphis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, North Texas, West Texas, Tulsa, among others left.
The bigger you get the harder it is to keep compatible schools.
LikeLike
For conversation sake lets assume Notre Dame decides to wait a few years and see how the CFB landscape plays out (NIL, CFB playoffs, ACC GOR, NBC TV, etc.). If they eventually decide a move to the B1G is in their own best interests, who is ND’s preferred plus one?
Not sure how many years is “a few,” but every Pac school is very likely to sign a grant of rights for the length of its next TV deal. If ND joins at any time other than near the end of a TV contract, they come alone.
I’ll get hammered for this but I’d take Colorado. AAU, top brand in the Mountain Time Zone, good TV market, rapidly growing metro area and to this day they consider Nebraska as their archrival, not Utah. Colorado also partially “bridges” the gap to LA.
Along with “travel partner,” “bridge” is a term that practically guarantees that the proposal is not happening. Nebraska has barely carried their weight since joining. The B10 won’t add an other school just to please them.
It’s interesting that everyone assumes ND has a plus one that they would insist upon. Maybe all of the plausible plus-ones are OK with them.
LikeLike
“Along with “travel partner,” “bridge” is a term that practically guarantees that the proposal is not happening.”
There is no rationale behind that comment. Look at a map. Colorado would be a logical and cultural annual rival for USC, UCLA and Nebraska.
LikeLike
I am writing from experience — despite the prevalence of the phrase on fan boards, the actual behavior of conferences suggests this is not a major factor in their thinking.
There are now hundreds of articles about the move of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten. If those teams want Colorado as a rival, it is a better kept secret than the nuclear codes.. Nebraska was perfectly willing to leave the Buffaloes behind when it joined the Big Ten.
LikeLike
“I am writing from experience — despite the prevalence of the phrase on fan boards, the actual behavior of conferences suggests this is not a major factor in their thinking.”
No, geographical proximity is a major consideration for conference realignment. Many obvious examples: Penn State, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, FSU, VT, etc. And in consideration that all of the ACC schools are in ESPN purgatory until 2036 and no one from the SEC is moving out, Colorado looks like a top choice if ND opts into the B1G.
LikeLike
@Colin
The point Marc is making is why would Colorado’s location as a “bridge” (or travel partner) outweigh other schools that offer better financial reasons?
Washington appears to be a better choice in virtually every respect outside of travel: better football brand that carries strongly in its home market and nationally, 3rd largest state not in Big Ten or SEC behind NC/VA, Seattle market is top 15, etc.
Big Ten is not going to take Colorado if they’re looking at a Western option ahead of schools that work better financially.
LikeLike
“The point Marc is making is why would Colorado’s location as a “bridge” (or travel partner) outweigh other schools that offer better financial reasons?”
OK, let’s look at that. Washington is the # 12 Nielsen DMA market with 1.8 million TV sets. Colorado is in the # 17 DMA with 1.6 million TV sets. Denver is # 12 fastest growing area in the US, Seattle is # 14. Colorado has a long-time rival in Nebraska, Washington has none in the B1G.
Now look at a map. Look at a map, OK? What makes sense?
LikeLike
They’re flying to either one, so the map makes essentially no difference.
If you want to argue UVA as a bridge to UNC, then I’d agree. But there just isn’t a bridge from the midwest to Los Angeles. Both sides accepted that when they agreed to the deal.
CU would be a rival for NE, but CU would wither even further in the B10. They have no alumni in the midwest. They don’t recruit in the midwest. There is no commonality beyond NE.
LikeLike
Colin, if Fox tells the Big Ten that they’d pay pro-rata for Washington but not Colorado, that’s all that would matter.
Washington is seen as a tentpole for the Pac-10 unlike Colorado because of football brand+market.
That’s what this comes down to…
LikeLike
Bob,
First, I don’t think they have a clear favorite. Different groups of fans have preferences, but you have to look at ND’s schedule. ND’s focus is on a national schedule to visit all of their alumni (and recruit) including an annual game in CA, plus retaining their games with Navy (debt owed for help during WWII) and USC (only true rivalry). USC and UCLA offer the annual trip to CA assuming the B10 will lock them in, so Stanford loses importance.
The B10 has the midwest and northern plains covered, plus the southern northeast and northern mid-Atlantic. So where couldn’t ND go in B10 conference play? The southeast (VA, NC, GA, FL), south (LA, TX), southwest (AZ), northwest (WA, OR), and mountains (CO, UT).
There are no options for the B10 in the south. Adding more western schools means unnecessary travel in all sports when they can just get some OOC games there instead. The obvious hole that is possible to fill and easier on athletes is the southeast. I think ND would like at least 1 of UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, or Miami. If forced to pick one, I’ll say UNC (bigger brand than UVA or Duke, hoops games).
LikeLike
If ND joins with UNC/UVA/Duke, that sets up a pretty easy rivalry group for them: give them permanent rivalries with USC, UCLA, and UNC if we’re giving 3 per school.
It works well in giving them the geographic range they’d want with 3 guaranteed games on the East and West coasts.
I’m also not convinced they’d have to have Stanford join with them, though it’s a possibility later if they don’t join with the UNC/UVA/Duke group.
LikeLike
If ND joins with UNC/UVA/Duke, that sets up a pretty easy rivalry group for them: give them permanent rivalries with USC, UCLA, and UNC if we’re giving 3 per school.
We are in the land of hypothetical, but if each school gets three permanent rivalries, I doubt those would be the three. When ND was playing a full independent schedule, they did not schedule UNC that often. So why lock that, and not one of the teams that they did play regularly, like Purdue, MSU, or Michigan?
LikeLike
With 3 mid-Atlantic teams ND would already get games there every other year at worst.
One model for 20 is 9 = 3 locked + 4*50% + 12*33%.
The simple model is 9 = 3 locked + 16*37.5%.
Maybe ND could get a mid-Atlantic road game for the first 10 years as part of joining (like PSU playing MI the first 10 years). I doubt it would be a permanent thing. Especially if they also want USC and UCLA locked to guarantee a CA road trip. My guess is they can lock in CA or the mid-Atlantic, but not both. USC will be one of their locks, but I’d think MI or PU will be one of the others. The MI rivalry has TV value, but PU needs that rivalry more.
LikeLike
Re Notre Dame wanting Stanford, it has nothing to do with Stanford being a football “rival,” which it isn’t. And it’s not even that ND views Stanford as a “peer,” which it really doesn’t; although it is definitely an aspirational peer. Instead, it’s that ND likes to think that it views college athletics in the same way that Stanford does, which isn’t quite the same way, for example, that Ohio State does. So Stanford gives ND a measure of comfort — along with Northwestern — that there will at least be a block of schools at the table when the B1G is deliberating the future of college football, NIL, etc. That’s why ND wants, and IMO it’s a condition precedent to ND agreeing to join, Stanford before signing on with the B1G.
On a separate note, I’m unpersuaded with the thought that UNC is important to much of anything other than college basketball. If the B1G is really focused on 50-100 years and demographics, then it would be working to persuade UT-Austin to reconsider going to the SEC. I’m aware of nothing preventing Texas from doing that, and we’ve seen in recent history that Texas is not above doing a 180 in pretty short order.
LikeLike
Why do you assume the B10 hasn’t been trying to add UT? The B10 can’t force them to say yes. UT wants the SEC. It’s a better cultural fit and their main rivals are there. Why would their minds have changed so soon? They haven’t even started losing SEC games yet.
LikeLike
UT views itself as, and in fact is, a better cultural fit in the B1G. There is nothing “South,” other than the weather, about UT-Austin. A&M, OTOH, is a completely different story.
As for recruiting, UT’s pitch has always been, and will continue to be, “You get to play for UT.” It’s not, “You get to play against Alabama, Auburn, etc.” Moreover, to the extent that opponents are a selling point, playing against Ohio State, USC, etc., would sell just as well; and either is preferable to the sales pitch they have had to make playing in the Big XII.
Finally, if it is true — and I assume it is — that USC and UCLA initiated contacted with the B1G and not the other way around, then why should anyone assume that the B1G HAS initiated contact with Texas in the last year?
LikeLike
Maybe the leadership of UT thinks of themselves as more of a public Ivy, but there’s a lot of constituencies at a university.
Culturally, the older alums, the big boosters, the t-shirt fans and others think of themselves as much more closely aligned with the South than with the North.
In some cases that may matter, in others it won’t.
I think UNC is similar, but UVA, Duke would probably pull them towards the Big Ten if the Big Ten offers them a package deal.
LikeLike
Peter,
I get that Austin is liberal compared to the rest of Texas, and that UT is the elitist school. I have heard plenty of UT people say they fit better in the SEC. The academics may prefer the B10, but I don’t think the students and alumni do. It’s still a Texas school with students from Texas. They have more culturally in common with OU, TAMU, AR, and LSU than NE, IA, IL, and IN.
Of course UT plays the “you get to play at UT” card. All kings do. But the B10 schools wouldn’t sell quite as well. The SEC has more brands, and all of their neighbors.
Official talks have to be initiated by the schools to the conference for legal reasons. But presidents talk to presidents, deans talk to deans, ADs talk to ADs, etc. Schools talk to various conferences all the time, to make sure they know their options. The B10 has had UT high on their list of options for years. They’d rather have had UT than USC. And once talks have started, they don’t end until UT is officially in the SEC. There has been plenty of courtship and there will continue to be. I’m sure they’ll make UT aware of how big the new B10 deal will be, and how much larger it could be with UT.
LikeLike
Big Ten has probably tried to add Texas at every single opportunity they’ve been available.
Just never went anywhere because their leadership was focused on the Pac-12 scenario a decade ago and SEC now.
There’s never been a “Texas to the Big Ten scenario” that was in play with their leadership. Big Ten has definitely contacted them about it though at every opportunity I’d imagine.
I mean remember the “(Texas) Tech problem” stuff; that came from Ohio State’s then president Gordon Gee talking to Texas’ then president.
There are schools that would prefer the SEC just as there are schools that would prefer the Big Ten.
USC is an example of where they contacted the Big Ten first and claim not to have contacted anyone else.
LikeLike
The play to get Texas that I think might have worked 10 years ago is for the Big Ten to have taken a block of Bg 12 schools: Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M. That might actually have worked. Although we’ll never know.
Instead, the SEC took Texas A&M, Missouri, Oklahoma – and ended up getting Texas. That’s what worked for them.
LikeLike
Although obviously Kansas and Colorado wouldn’t necessarily have been needed. But they could have been added with that block.
LikeLike
Andy,
If the B10 could’ve gotten NE, TAMU, UT, and OU, they would have. MO, KU and CU probably wouldn’t have been included, since none has strong ties to UT and none would add value above those 4 (the B10 would’ve reached out to ND again after that power move – maybe after ND said no then 1 of the other 3 would get invited). But TAMU and OU have never wanted to join the B10, they’ve always wanted the SEC (and both are better fits there). There was no set of schools that the B10 could get that would’ve brought UT along then.
LikeLike
The issue was always that A&M never had eyes for anything but the SEC and that ended up blowing up Texas scenarios.
And now given the success A&M is having in the SEC, there’s no surprise that Texas wanted to go to the SEC too.
Allowing A&M to have a permanent differentiating factor was a material risk imo.
Too much risk to Texas to take any other path imo.
LikeLike
Well, except for the early 90’s when UT inquired about joining the B10 and the B10 said expansion was on hold while PSU was assimilating.
LikeLike
Pac or Big 10 could have had Texas then.
LikeLike
Perhaps but I’ll always be skeptical.
I remember rumors about Kansas, Rutgers, Missouri being added back then too.
Texas to the Big Ten just never really made much sense in my mind; the SEC fit is the right time and place.
Just like USC to the Big Ten is the right time and place.
LikeLike
There was definitely a lot of talk that Missouri was going to join the Big Ten around the same time as Nebraska if the Big Ten added multiple schools. But they didn’t expand at that time and then the SEC did, so that’s where Missouri went.
By a lot of talk, I mean a lot of Missouri boosters/insiders claiming that was what was going on. To the point where Missouri football coaches were supposedly told it was practically a done deal.
LikeLike
I don’t just mean 2011, I also mean early/late 90s when there were expansion rumors after Penn State.
LikeLike
Yes, Missouri looked into joining the Big Ten multiple times over the years, including in the early 90s. But 2011 was the only time when the talks went so far that Missouri football coaches thought Missouri to the Big Ten was almost certainly going to happen. Obviously they were mistaken and the Big Ten decided to pause on expansion, and then Missouri joined the SEC shortly after that.
LikeLike
The maps that are included in the following post seem a reasonable representation of cultural affinities:
View this collection on Medium.com
Here’s a relatively simple metric, combining Stewart Mandel’s Emperor/King/Baron/Knight/Peasant concept, with AAU status, sorted by Colin Woodward’s 11 Nations of North America, and listed from B1Gest to SECiest. [Note: Barons are worth +1 point, Kings are +2, the Emperor (Alabama) is +3, and Peasants -1, with Knights worth zero. Then, schools get +1 for AAU status.]
Yankeedom [“great emphasis on perfecting Earthly society through social engineering, individual sacrifice for the common good, and the aggressive assimilation of outsiders” – solid B1G; approx half of 20th century B1G]
(+3)[B1G]Michigan (King/AAU)
(+2)[B1G]Wisconsin (Baron/AAU)
(+2)[B1G]Michigan State (Baron/AAU)
(+1)[B1G]Minnesota (Knight/AAU)
(+1)[B1G]Northwestern (Knight/AAU)
(-1)Boston College (Peasant)
(-1)Syracuse (Peasant)
New Netherland [“multiethnic, multireligious, and materialistic…with a profound tolerance for diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience” – likely B1G]
(0)[B1G]Rutgers (Peasant/AAU)[also Midlands]
Left Coast [“a hybrid culture that combines Yankee utopianism with an Appalachian emphasis on individual self-expression and exploration” – likely B1G]
(+2)Oregon (Baron/AAU)
(+1)Washington (Knight/AAU)
(+1)Stanford (Knight/AAU)
(+1)Cal (Knight/AAU)
(-1)Oregon State (Peasant)
The Midlands [“America’s great swing region…pluralistic and organized around the middle class…ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate, even apathetic” – likely B1G; approx half of 20th century B1G]
(+3)[B1G]Ohio State (King/AAU)[also Greater Appalachia]
(+2)[B1G]Penn State (Baron/AAU)[also Greater Appalachia]
(+2)Notre Dame (King)[also Yankeedom]
(+2)[B1G]Iowa (Baron/AAU)
(+1)[B1G]Nebraska (Baron)
(0)[B1G]Maryland (Peasant/AAU)[also Tidewater]
(0)Kansas State (Knight)
(0)Kansas (Peasant/AAU)
(-1)Iowa State (Peasant)
El Norte [“independent, self-sufficient, adaptable, and work-centered…an independent buffer state between the two federations (i.e. USA and Mexico)” – leans B1G]
(+3)[B1G]USC (King/AAU)
(+1)[B1G]UCLA (Knight/AAU)
(0)Arizona (Peasant/AAU)
(0)Arizona State (Knight)[also Far West]
Far West [“settlement was largely directed and controlled by far-off corporations or the federal government, both of which exploited it as an internal colony, to the lasting resentment of its people” – leans B1G]]
(+1)Utah (Knight/AAU)
(0)BYU (Knight)
(0)Colorado (Peasant/AAU)
(-1)Washington State (Peasant)
Greater Appalachia [“deep commitment to personal sovereignty and individual liberty and an intense suspicion of external authority”…]
…with influence from The Midlands [leans B1G]
(+1)[SEC]Missouri (Knight/AAU)
(+1)Pitt (Knight/AAU)
(0)[B1G]Illinois (Peasant/AAU)
(0)[B1G]Purdue (Peasant/AAU)
(0)Oklahoma State (Knight)
…mostly pure Greater Appalachia [leans SEC]
(+2)Clemson (King)
(+2)[SEC]Oklahoma (King)
(+1)[SEC]Tennessee (Baron)
(+1)Georgia Tech (Knight/AAU)
(0)[SEC]Kentucky (Knight)
(0)Louisville (Knight)
(0)TCU (Knight)
(0)Texas Tech (Knight)
(0)West Virginia (Knight)
(0)[B1G]Indiana (Peasant/AAU)
(0)[SEC]Vanderbilt (Peasant/AAU)
…with influence from Tidewater [leans SEC]
(0)Virginia Tech (Knight)
(0)Virginia (Peasant/AAU)
(-1)Wake Forest (Peasant)
…with influence from Deep South [likely SEC]
(+3)[SEC]Texas (King/AAU)[with El Norte]
(0)[SEC]Arkansas (Knight)
(0)Baylor (Knight)
Spanish Caribbean [cultural outlier – toss-up]
(+1)Miami (Baron)
Tidewater [“fundamentally conservative, with a high value placed on respect for authority and tradition and very little on equality or public participation in politics” – likely SEC]
(+1)North Carolina (Knight/AAU)[with Greater Appalachia/Deep South]
(0)Duke (Peasant/AAU)
(0)NC State (Knight)[with Greater Appalachia/Deep South]
Deep South [“bastion of oligarchic privilege…where democracy was the privilege of the few and enslavement the natural lot of the many” – solid SEC; majority of 20th century SEC]
(+3)[SEC]Alabama (Emperor)[with Greater Appalachia]
(+2)[SEC]Georgia (King)[with Greater Appalachia]
(+2)[SEC]LSU (King)[with New France]
(+2)[SEC]Florida (Baron/AAU)
(+2)[SEC]Texas A&M (Baron/AAU)
(+1)Florida State (Baron)
(+1)[SEC]Auburn (Baron)
(0)[SEC]Mississippi State (Knight)
(0)[SEC]Ole Miss (Knight)
(0)[SEC]South Carolina (Knight)
LikeLike
z33k,
There are too many reports from the people that would know (then-UT president, etc.) for it all to be false. Sure, the details may have prevented a deal from getting signed, but this isn’t fake news.
UT wanted the P10, but Stanford blocked them initially. So UT approached the B10 and got rebuffed because there was a 4 year moratorium on expansion. Then the B12 got formed before the P10 got around to saying yes.
At the time, UT was looking for a better academic conference to help their reputation.
LikeLike
Texas president at the time in 1990 had a deal to go to the Pac with A&M going to the SEC. He had already notified the regents. But at the last minute Stanford vetoed the deal. Stanford later changed its mind, but at that point Texas and Texas A&M had already gone back and recommitted to the SWC publicly. Arkansas moved to the SEC at that point. The Texas president wrote about it in a book, so its not like its just rumor. He was talking to the Big 10 at the time, but said the Big 10 told them they were stopping at 11 for the time being.
LikeLike
Here’s an archived article about conference realignment in the 90’s published by a Texas paper: :
https://web.archive.org/web/20100516161039/http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html?showFullArticle=y
It mentions the Longhorns getting turned down by both the Pac and the Big Ten (no mention of A&M being a candidate to the Pac).
LikeLike
There was some debate earlier about Colorado as a potential expansion candidate. My question for others is, will a media partner or conference focus on the current state of a program entirely or will they take a bet on history/potential? We know they are an AAU, so that checks a box. They’ve been a perennial top 25 team in the past, from 1989-2002 with historically significant games against Michigan (Miracle in Michigan) and Nebraska (long running and bitter rivalry) and also had a bit of a history with Notre Dame playing in the 1990 and 1991 Orange Bowls.
So it’s 2022 and it’s been a while since CU was relevant save an occasional aberration year. The current administration in and outside of the AD seem well respected from an Athletics perspective but it seems a stretch to think they could turn the program around given their history. Yet, it’s location is generally desirable in Boulder and it’s one of the fastest areas for population growth in the country. The population has shown it’ll come out in force for a winning team, as the Avalanche just demonstrated with an estimated 500,000+ fans attending the Stanley Cup parade.
Is this a potential sleeping giant that is worth betting on, or is it too late for them to demonstrate they can turn it around and be relevant? You could ask this of many schools, and you have to also ask if they want to go all in with football, but I think Colorado is an interesting profile that can be viewed in vastly different ways. I actually don’t think they want it ( to go all in); but what if they did?
LikeLike
“There was some debate earlier about Colorado as a potential expansion candidate.”
Iggy, I agree with you. Other appealing features is that UC would be a cultural link with LA and the Midwest, plus UC is the top brand in the Mountain Time Zone.
Also, the Big Ten could sponsor the Veterans Day Tripleheader. For whatever reason, Veterans Days has been pretty much ignored by the NFL and college football. Both leagues have a few games on that day but nothing dedicated like Thanksgiving.
The B1G could have three cross-town classics in a salute to our military forces on Veterans Day: Army-Rutgers, Navy-Maryland and Air Force-Colorado. And those games would be a national telecast every year.
LikeLike
Iggy,
The media consider the past, but only as a way to predict the future. Past success builds a brand so more fans will watch on TV, but long term struggles wipe that away. In the mid-90s, NE was what AL is now. Now NE is on the second tier of brands at best, and sinking. Younger fans don’t remember when CU was good, and that hurts.
CU has some potential, but their ceiling is probably on par with a WI. CU won’t become a king, and they are focused on the west where HS football is slowly shrinking. CU isn’t a bad option, they just aren’t at the top of the list for anyone but maybe the B12. Stanford offers a larger market. UVA and UNC offer larger states. CU is culturally different from the rest of the B10, and only has real ties to NE.
For the B10, the question is whether or not a school add roughly $100M to the pot. I just don’t see how CU can do that without going on a historical run of success.
LikeLike
Texas then started looking around again in 1993-1994. At this point, Texas Tech had more political power so a solo move to the Big 10 or Pac 10 was not feasible and they weren’t interested in Texas Tech. Hence the Big 12.
LikeLike
” Texas then started looking around again in 1993-1994. At this point, Texas Tech had more political power so a solo move to the Big 10 or Pac 10 was not feasible and they weren’t interested in Texas Tech. Hence the Big 12. ”
Texas pretty much single-handedly destroyed the old Big Eight, the Southwest Conference, the original Big XII and the disemboweled Big XII. I don’t think there is another school in the land that can boast about four notches carved into their sixshooter.
LikeLike
False, false, false, and false. When you make such biased comments as these, you should be required to reveal your past Aggie affiliation, just like political commentators have to mention if they worked on a certain politician’s campaign before they opine on them.
Big Eight – Texas destroyed the Big Eight because the Big Eight invited four Texas schools and became the Big 12? Strange reasoning.
SWC – Do you really think a conference comprised of eight schools from the same state, four of them small private schools, could survive in today’s big money college football? Good grief, SWC was a dead man walking for years. If anything, the rampant cheating by A&M, SMU, and some others was a secondary cause, nothing that Texas did.
Big 12 – Like the SWC, the Big 12 was a footprint disadvantaged conference, and the gravitational pull of the SEC and B1G destroyed it. Texas actually allowed the Big 12 to survive an extra decade most of the other desirable schools left. What other school can claim to have kept a conference together by the share might of its brand? The left behind schools should have thanked Texas for saving them from MWC affiliation over the last decade, bridging them to a functional Texas-less Big 12.
LikeLike
” False, false, false, and false. When you make such biased comments as these, you should be required to reveal your past Aggie affiliation,”
Well, I was fully expecting this type of outburst from the Tea Sips.
FACT: It was Texas who led the charge to dump SWC Rice, TCU, SMU, etc and combine UT, A&M and TT with the Big 8. They would have dumped Baylor too if Gov Richards didn’t put her foot down.
FACT: DeLoss Dodds and unequal revenue distribution drove A&M and Mizzou to the SEC, Neb to the Big Ten and Colorado to the Pac-12.
FACT: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M would all be in the Pac-12 right now if Deloss Dodds wasn’t obsessed with this turkey Longhorn Network.
FACT: UT and OU gutted the new Big XII when they bolted to the SEC.
LikeLike
So, is it Texas’ and USC’s and A&M’s obligation to subsidize and prop up lesser schools in perpetuity? Or are they allowed to pursue the situation/affiliation that is best for them? Maybe we actually agree on some of your FACTs, and the issue is just your characterization. You say Texas gutted those conferences, I say they made a no-brainer decision.
Unequal revenue sharing was absolutely not a prime cause of the BIg 12 break-up. Unequal revenue was something all Big 12 schools agreed to when the conference was created, and initially benefitted Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State more than Texas, because Texas was in a decade long rut and those other schools were perennial top 25 teams who made a lot of national TV appearances.
LikeLike
“You say Texas gutted those conferences, I say they made a no-brainer decision.”
As with many things, the truth is probably somewhere in between. Regarding the Longhorn Network, let’s be honest here. It drove A&M to the SEC, it totally screwed up the “Big XII five to the Pac-12 deal” and in and of itself, it was and is a total train wreck that is mercifully being shut down before it it comes an even greater embarrassment to the University of Texas.
LikeLike
I believe that LHN – in particular, Texas’ desire to show high school football games on LHN – was just used by the Aggies as political cover for them to move to the SEC. They, smartly IMO, coveted the SEC since the early 90’s. Even with no LHN, I believe they still find a way to the SEC in the 2010’s. Just my opinion, could be wrong.
LHN had the misfortune to coincide with Texas’ 12 years (and counting) of misery. It wouldn’t be such a punchline if Texas was winning. I’ll miss it greatly, especially if some basketball or baseball games now go untelevised. I’ll also miss the pre-game and post-game football coverage. I assume a lot of that stuff will get cut when we move to the SEC. LHN was actually pretty cool.
LikeLike
Aggies have trouble with the truth. Why don’t you read what President Loftin wrote in the Aggie paper. The LHN had nothing to do with A&M leaving. He had already decided in 2010 and was just waiting for the opportune time to leave. In any event, Texas offered A&M an opportunity to share in a “Lone Star” network during the development phase. A&M AD Bill Byrne refused, thinking it wouldn’t be worthwhile financially. The LHN was just a tool used by the A&M leadership to stir the Aggie faithful up, which isn’t that hard to do, to generate support for the move to the SEC. Loftin said he did it for branding as they did a survey and people outside Texas didn’t see any difference between A&M and Texas Tech and Houston and the other state schools. According to him it wasn’t about Texas at all. And A&M had been trying to get to the SEC since the late 80s. They finally had an opportunity.
LikeLike
“The LHN had nothing to do with A&M leaving. . . .Texas offered A&M an opportunity to share in a “Lone Star” network during the development phase. A&M AD Bill Byrne refused . . .”
Let’s tell the whole story, OK? DeLoss Dodds half-heartedly proposed a Big XII Network like the BTN, knowing full well that most of the B12 members didn’t think it was a viable business decision. They voted it down. DeLoss then half-heartedly offered A&M an opportunity to share in a “Lone Star” network and the Aggies said “No thanks”.
But then DeLoss said, “Well, if the Aggies said “no” then we’ll start a Longhorn Network and we’ll show high school games to get a HUGE recruiting advantage. Aggies then said they would like to join. DeLoss said “Too late”.
Bullet, when you say that the LHN had nothing to do with A&M leaving, that is flat-out not true.
LikeLike
Nor is unequal revenue sharing the reason for the breakup. Fact is, 7 schools consistently supported unequal revenue sharing. All but Kansas have left the conference. It was the 7 haves vs. the 5 have-nots. Texas rarely had the biggest share when it was unequal. It was usually Oklahoma. Even Kansas topped the list at least once. Texas, who had been very much for unequal sharing before, lead the drive to switch to equal revenue sharing after the 2010 Pac 16 deal fell apart. Texas and Oklahoma refused the offer from the left behind 5 to get a guarantee of $20 million (similar to what USC and UCLA got from the Pac 12). Texas A&M threw a fit demanding it, but was voted down. These ARE the facts.
LikeLike
And the TCU Killer Frogs are the real conference killers! TIAA, SWC, WAC 16, CUSA (key players went to AAC), MWC (Utah, BYU, TCU all left), Big East (never even made it there before it blew up) and they are now in the Big 12.
LikeLike
I believe TCU is the black cat for conferences. TIAA – gone. SWC – gone. WAC – dead. CUSA – shell of itself. MWC – shell of itself. Big East (agreed to join) – dead. B12 – shell of itself.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2022/07/16/deion-sanders-conferences-chasing-bag-college-football-realignment/10079666002/
Realignment isn’t just a P5 issue. HBCUs have to decide whether to stay together or chase the money. Talk about cultural differences in a new league.
Most HBCUs are in the MEAC or SWAC, and none are in I-A (for now).
Earlier this month, Hampton and North Carolina A&T became the first HBCUs to join the Colonial Athletic Association. Tennessee State, a longtime rival of Jackson State, plays in the Ohio Valley Conference.
Would an HBCU consider moving up to the G5? It’s a big financial jump, but they’d get a huge recruiting edge over other HBCUs and maybe their G5 conference mates.
LikeLike
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2022/07/15/josh-heird-louisville-acc-looking-for-espn-to-look-at-media-rights-deal/65373480007/
Last week UNC’s chancellor spoke out about ESPN giving the ACC a new deal and many wondered why. UL’s AD also spoke on the subject.
Like UNC’s Guskiewicz, Heird is hopeful ESPN will see some advantage in revisiting a network-friendly rights deal, presumably to preserve a partnership that could collapse if a majority of ACC members were to vote to dissolve the conference as a means of circumventing the league’s grant of media rights and finding new homes.
The key phrase in there is that it only takes a majority vote to dissolve the ACC. Many have thought it would take a supermajority, but apparently not. I don’t think they could legally dissolve and then reform with the same membership and get a new deal. But it would end the GOR (I assume), freeing schools to leave (and also eliminate exit fees).
So would 8 teams decide to scuttle the ACC?
Yes – ND
Maybe (Y if the B10 or SEC promise them a home) – Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVA, VT
No – (B10 and SEC wouldn’t take them) – BC, SU, Pitt, UL, WF
It’s possible, but I don’t see the B10 and SEC wanting 8 more schools. Those left behind would suffer unless ESPN offered them a raise per school, so it’s a huge risk. But only needing 8 votes at least makes these a feasible option.
LikeLike
https://www.hastingstribune.com/sports/college_football/luke-decock-where-does-acc-go-from-here-5-options-for-jim-phillips-and-schools/article_eb795c02-6072-5e2e-9e16-1ac45e34aaf4.html
On a related note, here’s more about only needing 8 votes.
The article discusses 5 options for the ACC:
1. Stay the course
2. Unequal revenue distribution
3. Dissolve with promises from B10 and SEC to take 8 members
There is no language in the ACC’s bylaws and constitution covering dissolution of the conference, other than a standard boilerplate clause about the distribution of property. The North Carolina law governing the dissolution of nonprofits would theoretically apply, requiring only a majority of voting members to agree to it. (Notre Dame, for some reason, gets a full vote and not 20 percent of a vote, even though it only gets a one-fifth share of revenue. That has never been sufficiently explained.)
4. Recreate an old ACC (with VT not UMD)
Have the VA 2, UNC 4, and GT withdraw and form a new ACC, letting Clemson, FSU, and Miami join the SEC (or B10). Again, that gets the 8+ votes to dissolve.
5. Kick out some deadweight (BC?, SU?, Pitt?)
It takes a three-fourths vote of ACC presidents to expel a member for being “incompatible with the objectives of the conference.” Notably, those objectives never mention competitiveness but they do include “responsible fiscal management.”
LikeLike
If the Big Ten and SEC want to go to 24, then this is easy. They could do this immediately.
For example;
Big Ten could take Cal, Stanford, Washington, Notre Dame, Pitt, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia.
SEC could take UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Colorado, Utah, Arizona.
Or some variation of that. Point is it would be easy to get to 8. That got to 10 without any trouble.
But if they’re only going to 20, it probably doesn’t work.
But, if the Big 12 and Pac 12 merge and get a decent media deal that pays more than the ACC, they could join in.
Perhaps:
Big Ten: Stanford, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Miami
SEC: UNC, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson
Big Pac Merged League takes: Louisville, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, NC State
That could work.
Makes me think we probably won’t be waiting until 2036 after all.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten and SEC want to go to 24, then this is easy. They could do this immediately.
Yes, easy—contingent upon those two leagues wanting to expand to 24. But I think it’s pretty unlikely that the Big Ten and SEC actually want that. The Big Ten could take two more Pac-12 schools right now, and it hasn’t. Some of the schools you have listed as SEC targets have no cultural, geographical, or competitive affinity with the SEC — Colorado and Utah being obvious examples.
LikeLike
Right. I’ve said all along that I highly doubt either the SEC or Big Ten will go over 20.
But IF they did, it would be easy.
If they don’t then they’ll need help from the Big 12/Pac 12 to get this done.
LikeLike
Andy,
First, there is no evidence either conference wants to go to 24 (or even 20). They have expanded to make more money per school. Going to 24 with ACC schools would reduce their payouts. The SEC just said they want stay at 16 (for what that sort of statement is worth).
Second, the B10 has no interest in some of those schools. The B10 will never add Pitt, and UVA, GT, and Miami makes little sense as a combination for the B10. I don’t know how much interest the SEC has in some of those listed either.
The B10 and SEC could take 8 ACC schools, but it is far from guaranteed that they want that many. There are questions about the desirability of any schools beyond ND and UNC. And the B10 and SEC would have to work on this separately and without discussion, but it would have to happen at the same time. I’m sure the ACC schools could work to coordinate things, but that would require them talking to each other so it would get leaked at some point (what if they tell a school but neither conference wants them?). That gets really ugly really quickly, and there’s a risk of lawsuits. The B10 and SEC might say you have to dissolve first, then we can consider making offers just to avoid liability issues.
LikeLike
I totally agree that going to 24 is unlikely. I was just saying that if they did this would be easy.
If they don’t go to 24, then getting to 8 becomes very unlikely unless a Pac 12/ACC merged super conference steps in and takes some of the ACC schools at the same time.
If schools backchannel and enough of them secure spots it could potentially work. If they’re determined to get out of the ACC. But yes it would be risky.
LikeLike
If ESPN is talking about re-opening the ACC contract, it must perceive some risk. Otherwise, one does not ordinarily revise a contract just because the other side made a bad deal. But it’s a game of chicken, since there are probably not 8 schools that would get invitations to other conferences.
LikeLike
So far it sounds as if most of this is coming from the ACC schools talking to ESPN about ways they could get more money.
But given ESPN’s current financial situation of dealing with massive payouts on other sports leagues as well as declining ESPN subs while trying to ramp up ESPN+; it’s not necessarily an easy sell.
ESPN probably needs to see real value in increasing their payouts here. Nothing will be free.
Either the ACCN needs to get more valuable to ESPN by adding Pac-12 schools or they need to add more conference games or cross-scheduling with the Pac-12 or whatever is needed to actually add value.
I would be shocked to see ESPN add say $10 million per school without some actual increase in value for ESPN themselves. They’ve never done anything like that.
CBS had the undermarket SEC deal for decades…, and there wasn’t anything the SEC could do about that.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s the ACC’s attempt at leverage. They’re trying to present a credible risk.
I’m not convinced it’s as simple as 8 schools voting to dissolve. The schools won’t do that without new spots lined up, and the B10 and SEC won’t make any promises that would violate an existing deal (exit fees are part of a deal, not a violation) for fear of legal liability. I think the lawyers would have a field day with it.
LikeLike
Yeah the ACC dissolution stuff sounds way too far fetched.
We literally just watched the Big Ten and SEC surgically add the 2 most valuable schools each from the Pac-12 and Big 12 respectively.
Now I’m not saying the Big Ten or SEC would only take UNC + 1, but at the same time, it’s very unlikely that 8 different teams would be guaranteed of invites if they vote to dissolve the conference.
So yeah I agree it’s a leverage play, all this talk about ACC being on the ropes is a way to try to pressure ESPN into helping them.
But I’m not really sure what ESPN can do; financially they need an incentive to pay the ACC more; either with more years on the contract (lol at getting Clemson/FSU to agree to that) or with additional TV value.
Hard to see what the ACC can provide that dramatically increases the value they’re bringing to the table here.
9th conference game might also be a tough sell to Clemson/FSU/Ga Tech who have USCe/UF/UGA on the schedule annually.
Adding Pac-12 teams to the ACCN sounds good in theory but that results in 10 more bites at that pie; would the sub count/sub fees out west provide enough additional $ to meaningfully increase the overall pie? I’m skeptical.
Combining championship games sounds nice but also divides the pie 24 ways as well… without a guaranteed dramatic $ increase.
LikeLike
Either the ACCN needs to get more valuable to ESPN by adding Pac-12 schools or they need to add more conference games or cross-scheduling with the Pac-12 or whatever is needed to actually add value.
Every ACC team is playing a Power Five non-conference game this year, and many are playing two. FSU, for example, is playing LSU in addition to its annual Florida game. In addition to Notre Dame and their four annual SEC rivalries, ACC programs have Illinois, Kansas, Rutgers, Northwestern, Ole Miss, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, West Virginia×2, and Vanderbilt on their schedules.
There is not exactly a lot of room there to toughen up their schedules. They are not playing the Pac-12, but replacing the above games with Pac teams does not make their TV inventory any better. It might be worse.
LikeLike
These guys are always good. They explain just how interconnected the PAC and B1G are. Whole lotta cross pollination
LikeLike
This guy seems convinced that Stanford and Cal will both get into the Big Ten. I personally would love that and it makes a ton of sense to me. But I just don’t know if the Big Ten has room for all of these schools. I suspect they stop at 18 or 20, and either way it doesn’t seem like there’s a spot for both, and Stanford would likely get priority.
LikeLike
Conferences expand for exactly one reason: to make more money on athletics — that is, to increase the payout per school. I can’t think of a voluntary expansion by any conference that was done for any other reason.
Now, the Big Ten presidents are delighted to be associated with USC and UCLA for academic reasons too. But those two schools would not have been invited if they did not pay for themselves athletically as well.
Based on that, I don’t see a way that both Cal and Stanford get in.
LikeLike
Adding Stanford+Cal would make at least as much money as adding RU and UMD did (BTW, UNC & UVa would be in the same league; possibly worse when you consider that neither are in major metros with a ton of B10 alums).
That they aren’t as lucrative additions as the LA schools doesn’t mean they aren’t net additive when you add in all sources of revenue.
LikeLike
I have not seen a source which suggests those two schools would make “at least as much money” as Rutgers and Maryland. The Big Ten is evidently not convinced either. After all, they can add Stanford and Cal right now—and yet they have not.
If Notre Dame is willing to join, they won’t want an odd number, so they will invite the better of the two, which is Stanford. If ND does not join, they will stay at 16 until the 2030s.
LikeLike
The B10 is definitely waiting on ND, but the B10 not adding the NoCal schools now doesn’t mean they won’t add at least one of them eventually. If they have decided that they will take either ND+Stanford or Cal+Stanford, they still wouldn’t have moved yet.
LikeLike
@Richard
World has changed since Maryland/Rutgers were added.
BTN isn’t quite as important as it used to be.
BTN will go from being 20-30% of the media money down to around 15%.
That’s why market grabs are less likely outside of demographic needs and adding brands.
LikeLike
World has changed since Maryland/Rutgers were added. BTN isn’t quite as important as it used to be.
Yes, and as payouts rise, the amount a pair of schools must contribute to pay for themselves ratchets higher and higher.
LikeLike
How does adding the SF market and a little bit of NoCal ( 40M people)? Or NC + VA (~17 M)?
SF is a large market, but Richmond + Raleigh + Virginia Beach + Charlotte is larger (combo is equivalent to Houston). Plus you solidify the DC market, where lots of B10 alumni live. In fact, VA and NC have plenty as well, they just aren’t all clumped into one large city. OSU alone has 3 alumni clubs in each state (not counting DC), representing thousands of alumni.
LikeLike
“How does adding the SF market and a little bit of NoCal ( 40M people)?”
You can make a pretty reasonable argument that we’ve already captured the SF/NoCal market with USC and UCLA and that Stanford and Cal won’t add much to it.
LikeLike
^
Woah! HTML error there cut out a line. That should say:
How does adding the SF market and a little bit of NoCal (fewer than 10 M people) equal NYC + NJ + DC + MD (over 40M people)? Or NC + VA (~17 M)?
LikeLike
Yeah it’s not clear on how much you need Cal/Stanford if you already have USC/UCLA in California. USC/UCLA obviously don’t have the same pull in NorCal that they do in South California but their pull is still probably pretty substantial given the historical success of USC football and that there’s a lot of cross-pollination of sports fans across California. Lakers/Golden State/SF 49ers/Raiders/Giants/Dodgers have fans across the state; not just in one part. I’d imagine USC/UCLA also have that going on…
BTN will probably get a bump in rates in North California as well from out of market to something halfway (?) between out of market (10 cents) and in market (90 cents).
Either way, North Carolina/Virginia are far more important to the Big Ten going forwards (especially combined with New Jersey/Philadelphia/Maryland) than any other additions on the West Coast.
It makes sense for the Big Ten to put its full effort on figuring out the ND and ACC parts of the realignment puzzle before anything else.
LikeLike
None of you folks ever lived in the Bay Area, did you?
No, USC and UCLA don’t hold any pull amongst non-alums in NoCal.
RU and UMD weren’t added simply because of the BTN. Meeting B10 alums for fundraising and recruiting (for both football and OOS students) were/are key reasons and the same reasons make the Bay Area compelling.
LikeLike
The interactive map is behind a paywall, but it might provide some insight. For the most popular CFB team, Stanford and Cal both have tiny regions (students?). The region is dominated by UO (or was in 2014).
My understanding is that SF is very much a pro sports town. CFB is way behind the 49ers for fan interest, much like Boston, NYC, etc.
LikeLike
And even if only USC/UCLA’s alumni cared about them in the Bay Area, that’s at least tens of thousands of alumni plus their families.
And while UMD and RU weren’t added solely for BTN, it was a huge factor. Without BTN, they’d not have been added (nor would UMD have wanted to come).
LikeLike
Land doesn’t watch TV (or donate money). Here’s an article trying to come up with the number of fans of each team (you’ve seen this before too): https://archive.nytimes.com/thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
LikeLike
Richard,
I know that article was discussed a lot when it came out. The data had issues then, and is no better after over 10 years. Unfortunately there just isn’t a good source for this. There may be some value in looking at the relative numbers, but not a ton. Mostly what I see is that P12 teams have small fan bases, and western cities don’t much care about CFB (no news there). Also important to remember is that fans and viewers are 2 different things anyway.
LikeLike
….Feel free to file this one under “Get off my lawn!” , buuuut. Now that covid restrictions have been lifted at Paramount, I was able to return for my bi-annual tour of the lot (if anyone has seen ‘the Offer’ I’m a huge Robert Evans/Chinatown/Godfather fan). Anyhoo, the two guys in front of me were talking about UCLA going to the B1G and the media rights deal. One of the guys worked at Amazon Studios and said his wife, who is apparently an executive there, told him the B1G has already agreed to sell them a package for an astronomical sum. Yes, I know, “BAH-HUMBUG!” Nonetheles, I’m very interested to see if this guy is as credible as he seemed. 😊
LikeLike
Well, who knows.
If Fox, CBS, and NBC split up the top 3 picks each week, Amazon could get 4th dibs.
I don’t think the B10 sees Amazon as worse than FS1, CBSSN, Paramount+, or some other streaming service.
LikeLike
I believe the B10 has already decided to prostitute itself for streaming. They’ve sold out on everything else, so why not this too?
The questions are:
* How many games?
* Games of what quality?
* In what time windows (and days)?
* How much scheduling (day/time) control does the streamer get?
* Which streamer?
* How much?
* How many fans do they lose?
The B10 won’t be cheap to buy, but literally everything is for sale at the right price because the B10 has no actual principles that outrank making money. I’m sure Wednesday night games at 10pm ET on Amazon will be very exciting for fans. Plus they can get free 2-day shipping for the $250/yr Amazon will soon be charging.
LikeLike
I mean, if principles mattered, they’d be out of the business of a brain-damage-causing sport. Once you cross that line, to stream or not isn’t exactly something that ranks highly in comparison on my morals/ethics spectrum
LikeLike
Games on cable are ok, but streaming is prostitution? An interesting take.
The very fact that the Big Ten is attracting King programs and greater increase from broadcasters suggests most believe the Big Ten will gain fans, not lose them.
No principles? The Big Ten is embodied by top academic flagship research institutions educating hundreds of thousands of young minds each year and expanding human knowledge with billions of research dollars each year. The group has recently added two more like-minded institutions to their group. Their teams play the same number of games with some additional teams with perhaps different broadcasters, for more money than the previous year. The Big Ten will be very pleased to earn more money. Broadcasters will be very pleased to sell more advertising to more viewers. Advertisers will be very pleased to have more people viewing their products. Big Ten viewers will be very pleased to see more quality games. Big Ten athletes will be very pleased to be seen by more interested people. I wonder what moral principle any of this goes contrary to. I wonder what you might be willing to do if offered $80-100 million per year. And while it won’t actually happen, personally, I’d love to see a good Wednesday night game. I’m at a loss to know what moral or religious code has Wednesday as its holy sabbath.
LikeLike
There are some people to which any change to what they grew up with is an offense to their moral principles, it seems.
LikeLike
Who said games on cable aren’t also part of them selling themselves out?
The B10 attracted new schools because of money. That doesn’t imply more fans per school, just that media companies think they can make a profit from it.
B10 schools race to earn the most research dollars, with professors building their own reputations. Educating undergrads is a distant second on the list.
The B10 doesn’t earn more, individual athletic departments do. And then they raise their expenses even more, so many of them still get funded by student fees. And I’m sure athletes are thrilled about midweek cross-country trips because it makes money in football. The USC and UCLA athletes (and their coaches) have already started expressing their pleasure online.
First, B10 schools were already scheduled to earn over $60M per year, with that going up significantly on the new deal. Adding 2 schools further increases that payout. Streaming itself will be a smallish chunk of that extra money. And I think what a university would do for a drop in the bucket of its total budget is a vastly different question from what an individual would do for the same amount of money. Besides, not everyone values money above all else.
And where did I say anything about morals?
LikeLike
“Who said games on cable aren’t also part of them selling themselves out?”
One could argue anything done for cash is a sell out. Some just justify what they (or their university) do for cash, then criticize others for making their own financial decisions.
“The B10 attracted new schools because of money. That doesn’t imply more fans per school, just that media companies think they can make a profit from it.”
Right. The media companies make more money because millions of fans see more games of interest, The schools make more money in the process. This is not a bad thing. It is the very basis of our economic system.
“B10 schools race to earn the most research dollars, with professors building their own reputations. Educating undergrads is a distant second on the list.”
First, teaching and research are not mutually exclusive. I spent much of my undergraduate education in science and assisting National Academy of Science members doing research at one of the top research institutions in the world. There is no substitution for that.
Regardless, a university does not have to devote itself exclusively or primarily to educating undergraduates. That is an extraordinarily narrow perspective. Expanding human knowledge is an equally noble goal and literally part of most definitions of a university. The university research dollars you deride developed the technology you use to watch your football team–live–2000 miles away. Research brought you the computer system you use to read this, the Covid vaccine in your veins, the plane you fly on, the technology that heats your home, feeds your family, treats your mother’s diabetes, and informs us of our place in the cosmos. Research is a good thing.
“The B10 doesn’t earn more, individual athletic departments do. And then they raise their expenses even more, so many of them still get funded by student fees.”
Fees have gone up at every US university irrespective of the school’s TV deal. In fact, the Big Ten has relatively reasonable fees compared to many universities.
“And I’m sure athletes are thrilled about midweek cross-country trips because it makes money in football. The USC and UCLA athletes (and their coaches) have already started expressing their pleasure online.”
UCLA and USC’s joining the Big Ten will mean 2-3 hours more travel time for a half dozen or so trips three or four months of the year. If that’s too large a burden, no one is forcing students to go to UCLA or USC. Some students will actually want to compete on a larger, more national, athletic stage and will happily choose these schools. Others may wish to eschew UCLA or USC for this reason and attend Cal-Irvine or UCSD. Others may choose to focus on being a student and have their athletics can just be a pastime, as is done for the vast majority of students.
In any event, it’s unfortunate that someone who is clearly not a fan the Big Ten or conference expansion chooses to spend so much time and effort on this board discussing the very topic.
LikeLike
I believe the B10 has already decided to prostitute itself for streaming.
Eh. It’s just another technology for putting games on TV. They went on cable at a time when not everyone had cable—perhaps some still don’t. They went on the Big Ten Network when not everyone could get it (and it was an extra charge for those who did). I know they part-own BTN, but why is that relevant? It is simply another way they make money.
LikeLike
It was relevant because they were their own pimp for BTN. They had an ownership stake, not just whatever fee a company would pay, and they could include non-revenue sports coverage in the off times.
All the forms of putting the games on TV are part of the same path, this is just another unnecessary step down it. Once they let TV start dictating terms, it’s all been downhill.
LikeLike
What other choice do they have though?
NFL put its entire Thursday package on Amazon and the Sunday Ticket is likely going to Apple.
It’s not about just money but also about following the viewers.
ESPN subs are down 25 million since the peak a decade ago; roughly 25%.
That’s millions of potential viewers gone from cable/broadcast.
You have to follow the sports viewer as the transition to streaming moves forward.
Traditions change, Big Ten and SEC expansion are in reaction to financial forces/pressures due to NIL, media changes, etc.
All these things favor like-minded schools coming together.
LikeLike
It’s not about just money but also about following the viewers. ESPN subs are down 25 million since the peak a decade ago; roughly 25%.
It used to be that if you had cable, you had ESPN, because it was in almost every cable provider’s basic package. ESPN’s “subscribers” always included people who don’t care about sports. Those are the subscribers they are losing.
ESPN has more college football than any other network. Those who have let ESPN go probably won’t be watching on Amazon either. I think Brian’s complaint is that Amazon becomes one more thing you have to separately pay for if you want to see all the games. They are not putting games on Amazon instead of the platforms they already have, but in addition to them.
LikeLike
“I think Brian’s complaint is that Amazon becomes one more thing you have to separately pay for if you want to see all the games. They are not putting games on Amazon instead of the platforms they already have, but in addition to them.”
Yep, that’s their strategy. Last year Purdue had a football game at pathetic UConn. The only carrier was some nothingburger sports network (can’t remember name) that I had literally never heard of before.
To watch the game, I had to call Spectrum and upgrade to the next level for one month. Cost me twelve bucks. That’s what happens when the content from one conference gets spread out over 5 or 6 platforms. We diehard fans will do whatever it takes to follow our teams.
LikeLike
You’re still losing viewers from cord cutting though.
Even though the propensity to view sports may have been much lower among cord cutters there’s a significant number of people in that category that were sports viewers and are now much less likely to view sports than even their low levels before.
I can only use myself as an example, I always used to check ESPN and ESPN2 while crusing through my cable package but since cutting the cord I watch way less sports.
Much more of my time goes to Netflix, YouTube, etc.
I try to watch games for my teams when I can but I no longer watch tons of random games between teams I have no affiliation to, which is what I used to watch when I’d randomly check what was on ESPN.
This is also why even sports ratings are down in my opinion over the past 5-10 years.
I think a lot of the “low propensity” sports viewers are even less likely to view sports now in the cord cutting era.
Chasing those viewers to Amazon and Apple and the like is a good strategy.
Even the Super Bowl is down 10-15 million or so viewers from its peak levels and that’s on broadcast.
I think that’s the same impact from having less people in the overall cable/broadcast ecosystem due to cord cutting.
Getting back those viewers is an uphill battle.
LikeLike
And it’s not just me saying that, a lot of media analysts have been saying the same thing over the past few years; here’s a piece quoting a MoffettNathanson analysis on the impact of this:
https://tribunecontentagency.com/article/cord-cutting-is-killing-the-casual-tv-sports-fan/
‘The fracturing of the TV environment through cord-cutting and the on-demand delivery mechanism of streaming services mean people are more intentional about what they watch. If you’re Comcast or Disney, and you used to count on people flipping through the channels and landing on the Olympics or ESPN, you’re probably finding those passive viewers a lot harder to come by these days.
“Without encountering all those promotional pieces about athletes and events, why would the casual fan care enough to watch?” MoffettNathanson writes. “Or, worse, in some cases, how would the casual fan even know what’s going on?”’
How do you get those viewers back when they were just casual sports viewers who would watch sports just because they flipped through channels and landed there when they saw a big event between national brands or because they got advertised about it a ton and decided to check it out…
It’s a lot harder to get to those viewers once they cut the cord. Do they even know if a big event is on that they should be watching? and all the other questions that go along with that as corollaries.
Even the Super Bowl is showing ratings loss and everything else is much worse off whether NBA/MLB championships or other “major” sporting events like bowl games which are drawing much worse ratings than even just a few years ago when cord cutting started.
LikeLike
@z33k: I agree that some of ESPN’s subscriber loss included a middle tier of sports viewers who’d browse the network if it was there, but did not chase it after they cut the cord. But I doubt that cohort is a significant part of what they are hoping to get from Amazon. The set of viewers who would watch a game on Amazon Prime, but not ESPN, is probably quite small.
Rather, the more ways you split up the pie, the more you make. That is why BTN exists, despite showing generally the worst games. And that is why the next media deal will probably be split three or four ways, as opposed to two today. ESPN plus Fox plus NBC plus Amazon will pay more than just ESPN and Fox, even though the total number of games does not change.
LikeLike
Low propensity viewers aren’t going to stumble across a game on Amazon and decide to watch it. They have to make a conscious choice to be watching video on Amazon versus somewhere else in the first place, and they don’t go to Amazon for the broad array of games it carries. They also have to be there when the games is played, not on demand.
It has to be medium to high propensity viewers that cut the cord to get them to stream a game on Amazon. There is much more value to Amazon than the B10 in this.
LikeLike
z33k,
You can’t get those viewers back. They watched only because the medium made it easy, and it seemed like the best thing on at the time (like in the old days of 3 channels – the networks will never recover those ratings days). There are so many more choices of what to watch now, and more importantly many are asynchronous viewing. Sports viewership will only ever decline as a percentage. So they keep adding more and more commercials to make it more valuable to them, but those ads drive away viewers and hurt the live experience.
The other reason you stopped watching as many random games is getting older. Priorities change. Many college kids can watch games from 12 – 12 every Saturday, but as your job gets more demanding, you have a house to maintain, you have a family, you have less energy, etc. the opportunity cost changes.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, that is a large part of my complaint. You will need Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, BTN, and now Amazon to watch one conference. You can’t even buy it all in one package anymore, and all the services (Amazon, cable, full sports streaming bundles) are expensive. Plus the streaming bundles keep changing, and you have to know which channels are in which one and where the game you want is being shown.
LikeLike
I don’t see it as the B10’s mission to help Amazon add subscribers and raise the price of their service. But with this, the B10 would force fans to deal with one particular service provider. Not everyone wants to support Amazon and their business practices. You have options how to get OTA channels, and even cable channels.
LikeLike
The choice is to not do these things. They don’t actually have to chase this sports money, that’s a choice. Plenty of schools don’t follow that path.
LikeLike
Which P5 or G5 schools do not follow the money? Notre Dame? Isn’t ND unique in that alumni contributions plus their own TV network make up for money?
Who else?
LikeLike
Are all schools in P5 and G5? And even within those levels, there are different levels of chasing the money.
LikeLike
You could argue that even ND is “following the money” — they just get it in other ways (i.e., from donors). Ultimately, they are just as selfish as everyone else.
LikeLike
They don’t actually have to chase this sports money, that’s a choice.
True, but after they have done that for basically our entire lifetimes, it’s a bit odd to say that streaming is the bridge too far. If you go far back enough, some Michigan fans hated Yost for building a huge stadium and then raising ticket prices to pay for it.
LikeLike
Honestly, I was waiting for you to mention the Ivy League. Of course, a huge majority of colleges do not make money from sports. I would not be surprised if a majority may only play sports at the club level. There are tens of thousands of small colleges all over the country not even familiar to anyone who lives more than 50 miles away.
Are any of the schools now playing in conferences to earn money going to stop? The answer is yes and there are a few every year who do that. Is it even one percent per year? Not likely?
How many of the schools that play D1 basketball every year drop down?
Your theory is interesting, but not real world.
LikeLike
The Ivy League might just be the one conference in Division I that has chosen not to make money where they could have.
LikeLike
Some B10 examples:
UIC didn’t. RU didn’t chase the money for decades. Neither did schools like NW. Heck, OSU turned down a Rose Bowl bid because football was getting too powerful.
But once the Supreme Court unleashed TV money, everything has gone downhill. And as the money grows larger, the schools will go to greater extremes to get it because they’re addicted. They get a big boost in money, then magically need a bunch of new facilities and higher salaries and then they’re out of money again and looking for the next revenue stream.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I didn’t explicitly name them, but I was thinking about them. And schools like UIC who quit the game. But I didn’t want to get into the details of any particular school. The point is that it’s very much a choice these schools have made and continue to make.
I didn’t say anyone would stop chasing the money, just that they don’t have to chase it. My theory is that the schools will just keep chasing it more and more until the house of cards crumbles. Addicts don’t often quit until they hit bottom and/or are forced to quit.
LikeLike
Marc,
Streaming on Amazon is different because it’s forcing fans to deal with one specific service provider, and helping that company add subscribers and raise their service price. If you don’t like Comcast, you at least have some options for how else to get cable channels. Plenty of people don’t like Amazon and intentionally avoid them, but now the B10 would be forcing them to subsidize that company. You also can’t avoid the networks, I know, but at least I can access them in multiple ways.
And as you noted, this is yet another layer of service fans have to buy to see their games. And this step doesn’t have to be taken. Avoiding cable wasn’t really an option as ESPN was taking over the world back then, and cable subscriptions had huge market penetration. Streaming is not at that same point yet, so this step is not needed. This is just one more step down the path, and all those steps have been somewhat objectionable. Taking this one now is just more objectionable to me. So I will continue to watch even fewer games, and let everyone else enjoy paying Amazon.
I’m not advocating for a boycott, or even telling them not to do it. They just have to accept that one cost of these sorts of decisions is losing some fans like me along the way. It’s a small price to pay, and I doubt they’ll even notice or care.
LikeLike
Brian likes to pretend that ND doesn’t chase money, even though they actually do (though in their case, the calculations are different because alum donations are such a big part of revenues).
And sure, you could argue that the Ivies decided not to chase the money though you could also argue that that wasn’t a hard decision for them as they didn’t give up a lot (if anything) either. If they had somehow managed to stay in FBS, at best they would be in the same position as Rice now, and Rice’s athletic department may actually make less profit/lose more money than the average Ivy does in sports.
LikeLike
I believe the B10 has already decided to prostitute itself for streaming.
I am (overly optimistically) hoping that the streaming component will mirror what Paramount/CBS is doing with the NFL where you get what games are on your local station on Paramount+. Assuming a FOX/CBS/NBC OTA split, The CBS game would be simulcast on Paramount+ and the NBC game on Peacock. I’m hoping Amazon* cuts a deal to simulcast the FOX games (similar to how TNF used to be) rather than using the FOX Sports app. Everything on ESPN/FS1/BTN most likely won’t get a streaming component to continue prop up cable subscriptions.
*IMO someone is going to buy FOX, might as well be you Bezos.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think any of the other carriers would approach streaming mostly that way. They’d still probably want some exclusive content, but they wouldn’t need as much. I just don’t see that model working for Amazon. If they are going to invest big money, it’s for exclusive content. I doubt they’d bother getting involved to just to be the streaming option for OTA games.
LikeLike
What with schools chasing money, payments for NIL, possible actual salaries, the portal, the destruction of old conferences and rivalries, it is possible fans will become alienated. And why pay money to watch a semi-pro league?
And remember, Title IX is lurking out there, and it only takes one federal judge to decide every athlete must be paid, and paid the same amount.
LikeLike
If you had a dollar for every time someone said “_______ will kill the sport,” your subscription to Amazon Prime would be covered many times over.
LikeLike
Marc,
CFB will never die completely, but it may morph beyond recognition as CFB and may also lose popularity.
And while the numbers may not be huge, I know significant donors to OSU who have been turned off to the point of stopping athletic (and for some even academic) donations. And if the younger alumni aren’t feeling the same connection to their school through football, future donations could drop even more. At some point the schools may well notice that.
LikeLike
I suspect that younger alums will expect CA schools in the B10 to be normal.
Nobody yearns for some era _before_ they went to college.
But in any case, if football does fade, if anything, that is a stronger argument for the B10 to create an academic rival to the Ivy League. All those schools have high alumni donation rates and it’s not due to football.
LikeLike
Maybe NW’s alums will, but it will take a lot longer for OSU’s alumni to feel that way. They’ll accept USC and UCLA, but it won’t feel normal. Current students don’t feel UMD and RU are really members. NE is borderline with them.
Lots of people yearn for past eras. Look at people thinking how great the 50s were, and that we should get back to that.
You keep trying to sell the faux-Ivy plan, but nobody is buying it. A bunch of huge land grants will never be considered on par with the most elite private schools in the world. A few members may be at that level, but NE, IA, MSU, OSU, etc. will prevent that perception from ever becoming common. Even if the B10 dropped athletics, it still wouldn’t happen. Likewise, a bunch of large, midwestern public schools will never match the donation rates of the ivies.
LikeLike
Oh, the people with rose-colored views of an era they never lived through?
Anyway, I’m betting on most people adapting.
LikeLike
Sure, most will. No doubt. But if the numbers shrink each time they make another change, that is a problem. If they pick up more new fans than they lose old ones, that’s fine for TV. It might be different with alumni (older ones donate more).
LikeLike
Brian, as far as I can tell, you’ve been against every change (and have predicted doom coming for a while). All while the B10 schools grow ever richer and gets ever more alumni donations (granted, the economic boom since the Great Recession has helped).
Anyway, I’ll start listening to your predictions of doom when I see evidence for it.
LikeLike
I have been against every change, but I haven’t always said they would cause doom for CFB. Some I just don’t like. Others I think will ruin what’s good about CFB, turning it into NFL-lite which is probably a viable product but of no interest to me. A few may actually doom CFB.
The US population is aging as a large generation passes through. Donations may rise (I have no data either way), especially coming off a boom for the wealthy. And schools have been doing stronger fundraising campaigns. But expenses have also been growing very quickly. It will take decades to see the impact of changes now on future donations as the current students retire.
Are the schools richer? The athletic revenue goes up, but they seem to spend it all. Schools like RU are running huge deficits and charging high student fees. Schools have huge debt loads to service for all the new facilities they keep building.
LikeLike
I realized I haven’t been against every change.
I was fine with the move to full cost of attendance scholarships. I was fine with the concept of NIL if it was properly controlled, but predicted the situation we have now is what would happen. And I was fine with some of the changes long ago (EX. B10 allowing bowls other than the Rose, intentions behind Title IX, reduction to 85 scholarships, moving to 12/3:30 TV windows from the usual 1:30, starting BTN). I wasn’t a huge fan of adding PSU (and they still don’t really feel like a member to me), but I understood it as a business decision. I was fine with inviting ND all the previous times and still am.
I’ve been against all the more recent postseason changes (BCS, CFP, B10 CCG), and major realignment of the B10 (NE, RU, UMD, USC, UCLA) and others. Those changes have reduced my interest in CFB, and has for some others as well.
LikeLike
He’s willing to admit he’s having discussions. The news over the weekend from Louisville that it takes a majority vote to dissolve the ACC. There is an awful lot of posturing going on right now.
LikeLike
Well, that is a lot more believable than the previous unsourced story that the SEC was staying at 16. “We’re comfortable at X” (where X is your current number of schools) and “We’re evaluating the landscape” are right out of Jim Delany’s handbook of canned answers. Right up there with “thoughtful” and “nimble”.
LikeLike
Also, he mentioned contiguous states, previous rivalries etc. so basically another college from a state they are already in or a state bordering the current footprint or anybody else is a possibility as the future unfolds.
LikeLike
Surely some posturing going on here, but would the B1G add Cal to resolve this?
https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/15/gavin-newsom-california-governor-blasts-lack-of-transparency-ucla-move-big-ten
LikeLike
There was not one word in the article indicating that anything could be done about it. Gavin is making a PR move to mollify Cal supporters. He never suggested that UCLA could be stopped by anyone.
Personally, my guess is that if it came down to it, unless USC insists that UCLA stay, neither Cal nor UCLA will be in the B1G as opposed to both.
I find it very hard to believe that that UCLA the B1G did not view UCLA rights very carefully before creating a public relations fiasco without a move to the B1G.
If this gets serious, expect UCLA to be demanding a bail out of their non-income sports. Then they cut sports. It would be fun, but I do not expect the issue to reach that poin.
LikeLike
Would this be socialism at its best, if UCLA was forced to share its windfall with Cal? Cal won’t come to resolve it, but Stanford could instead of UCLA! THAT would be absolutely special! LOL
LikeLike
“if UCLA was forced to share its windfall with Cal? Cal won’t come to resolve it, but Stanford could instead of UCLA!”
As I previously mentioned a couple of times regarding the “ND partner”, we have no information whatsoever to indicate that Stanford wants to join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
As I previously mentioned a couple of times regarding the “ND partner”, we have no information whatsoever to indicate that Stanford wants to join the Big Ten.
What information do you feel we should have? Schools do not always announce the conferences they would like to be in. We do know that athletic programs seldom leave money on the table.
Unlike Notre Dame, Stanford does not have donors for whom conference affiliation (or the lack of it) is an existential issue. Anything is possible, but it would be surprising if there is any school besides Notre Dame that would decline a Big Ten invitation.
LikeLike
“it would be surprising if there is any school besides Notre Dame that would decline a Big Ten invitation.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if Stanford declined. They don’t need the money (nice to have, but not a necessity), especially if they are going to sit out the future of big-time college football. And if they dropped out of Power 5 football, how many of their stakeholders would really care? IMO, this is the biggest threat to ND not joining the B1G, that Stanford might opt not to.
LikeLike
Peter,
There are reports of powerful Stanford alumni reaching out to the governor about UCLA’s move. They care about their athletics being first class. They don’t directly care about football all that much perhaps, but they know that it is what funds all their Olympic sports which they do care about immensely. Their success at endowing athletic scholarships helps them a lot, but they still want to be at the top level.
That said, I’m not saying Stanford is guaranteed to accept any B10 offer. They are one of the few non-SEC P5 schools that could afford to say no. But I’m not sure they wouldn’t say yes, either.
LikeLike
Peter,
By all accounts, Newsom and the other regents don’t have the legal power to stop the move. What they could do is punish UCLA (more likely its administrators) in other ways, but they have to be very careful about not being seen to hurt a state school. Hurting an elite school would be both hypocritical and dumb. But they could perhaps shift some funding to Cal on the basis that UCLA has that extra B10 money coming in.
Why would the B10 add Cal; to resolve this? Adding Stanford instead of UCLA is simpler and adds the SF market. It also makes Newsom the bad guy for costing UCLA the upgrade. The only way I see Cal being invited is if USC insists on UCLA no matter what. Then the B10 would probably invite Cal as the price of getting USC. I’d guess that Stanford would also get invited in that scenario. But I don’t see that happening.
LikeLike
Cal is a big state school (in the RU/UMD mold) with a ton of alums.
I’m not going to make predictions but people are consistently underrating the possible addition of Cal for (IMO) flimsy reasons.
LikeLike
Or you are overrating it. If the B10 really wanted them, they’d be in already. There only chance now is as someone’s partner.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-uclas-leadership-will-be
From a pro-P12 perspective, John Canzano has this article. His expert, a former state senator from WA, thinks this deal could be in trouble.
“The UC Regents themselves didn’t know what UCLA was up to and no public vote was taken,” Baumgartner said. “It’s still unclear what the majority of them think, but they could do anything from stop it outright to vote to make UCLA athletics subsidize any financial damage to Cal.”
A subsidy would be an interesting compromise. It would penalize UCLA and bolster Cal, but it wouldn’t ease the anxiety of the bondholders of the UC system. They might still litigate. … Would having to share that windfall with Cal give UCLA pause? Or just serve as a speed bump on the road to the Midwest?
…
He cautioned me to not listen too carefully to Political Science professors who are busy going on the record with various news outlets saying the Newsom doesn’t have the authority to block the move.
“Nobody knows less about how politics actually works than poli-sci professors,” Baumgartner said. “The leverage a Governor has over a public university is immense. If Newsom doesn’t want UCLA to go, they won’t be going.”
LikeLike
Odd that he doesn’t even consider the possibility that Cal also goes to the B10 (along with Stanford). It’s not as if adding the NoCal schools adds nothing.
And in that case, the bondholders definitely would have nothing to complain about.
LikeLike
Another hatchet job from the Washington Post about USC/UCLA to the B1G. The previous one didn’t appear here, presumably too long. I’ll try this one in tow parts.
Opinion The college football lunacy isn’t permanent. It’s going to get worse.
By Rick Reilly Contributing columnist July 18, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. EDT
And now, class, it’s time to catch you up on college football, the sport that brought you the TaxSlayer Gator Bowl. Please open your textbooks to “Madness.”
College football is slaying its history. It’s selling all its tradition and fans and rivalries down the river on an out-of-control steamboat with a drunk donkey at the wheel. The lunacy really kicked in on June 30 when USC and UCLA bolted the Pac-12 conference for the Big Ten (which now will have 16 teams, if that makes any sense).
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
That’s right. Starting in 2024, the Big Ten conference, longtime symbol of the hearty American Midwest, corn ice cream and 400-pound kickers, will now be playing teams full of surfers, lowriders and guys in hair buns.
Big Ten teams are now conveniently located near their banks, not each other. Take USC, which is near Hollywood, and their new conference foe Rutgers, which is somewhere near “The Sopranos.” This is going to be such an exciting new rivalry. One team has six Heisman Trophy winners, can claim 11 national championships and over the years has spent 91 weeks as the No. 1 team in the country. The other is Rutgers.
Then you have the University of Maryland — a Midwest-by-the-Chesapeake Big Ten team since 2014 — soon to be taking on UCLA, which is a six-hour flight away. The winner of the game will take possession of the coveted Dead Polar Bear trophy. Imagine that: The flyover states they’ll be flying over are where their conference resides. College football really needs to get Google Maps.
Why did UCLA abandon the traditions of nearly 100 years in the Pac-12, the conference that has more national championships in more sports than any other? Because its athletic program was $103 million in debt, according to USA Today, and stands to make about $60 million more per year in TV money with the Big Ten than it was with the Pac-12. What good are traditions if the repo man just took your blocking sleds?
Not only did the Pac-Whatever lose its two biggest schools, there’s a rumor the conference could lose four more (Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State) to the Big 12, which last summer found out it was losing its two biggest teams — Oklahoma and Texas — to the Southeastern Conference, which needs two more good teams the way the Kardashians need more selfies.
Without the Sooners and the Longhorns, the Big 12 is left with a lot of teams such as Texas Tech and Iowa State, which don’t fluff up anybody’s pom-poms. Two-four-six-eight! Why’d we leave the tailgate?
LikeLike
As for talk of a possible merger between the Big 12 and Pac-Whatever … fine. You can make a tofu and wheatgrass smoothie. There’s still no meat in it.
And if you think those once-respectable conferences now suck like the Dyson factory, imagine how the lesser conferences look. Their membership changes hourly, as do their names. Tell you what, I’ll list a few and you try to tell me which one’s fake: The Big West. Mid-Central. AAC. Sun Country.
All anybody really cares about is college football’s Godzilla, the SEC, which has won 12 of the last 16 national championships — six of them by Alabama alone. One SEC team or another has been in the final game for 15 of the past 16 years. Put it this way: The SEC just rejected the New York Jets for membership.
Next earthquake up is Notre Dame, which is somehow still an independent, but not for long. It will almost certainly soon jump to the Big Ten or the SEC — the Big Ten can pay Notre Dame $65 million more per year than it was getting out of its creaky old NBC deal. Do you know how many golden domes that would buff?
Meanwhile, if you’ve seen the NCAA anywhere, will you have them call the office? They’re supposed to be in charge of all this insanity but can’t seem to stop it. Reminds me of the time we came home to find our kids running crazy inside the house and the babysitter locked out, sitting on the porch — crying.
But don’t fret, college football fans. None of this is permanent: It’s going to get worse, until what we’re left with is two superconferences — the Big Ten and the SEC — with maybe 40 teams total. The superconferences, controlling all the watchable college football in the country, will then put the NCAA out of its misery, take over the game and hold their own national championship.
And the egghead teams that aren’t at all watchable, such as Vanderbilt in the SEC and Northwestern in the Big Ten? They’ll get kicked down to one of the JV conferences and eventually become accountants for TaxSlayer.
LikeLike
Colin,
It’s clearly labeled as an opinion piece, so I wouldn’t call it a hatchet job. Millions of people don’t like where CFB is headed, and USC/UCLA to the B10 was a jarring reminder to the casual fans of how things are changing.
LikeLike
Seriously guys, cut the cord, get YouTube Tv for $65 a month and buy something for your wives on Amazon. You’ll never miss a game. 😊. My guess is, having made a killing by selling much of its non-sports entertainment content library to Disney, Murdoch’s now fattening up Fox Sports (with the B1G and Brady) to eventually be acquired.
LikeLike
Also: Amazing that the same people who are always pushing UVA (which has no brand OR viewership appeal) based on its ‘media market’ don’t feel the need to plant the B1G flag in Northern California with the Cardinal. An area with three times the population in a media hotbed. Fortunately I am confident Stanford will be ND’s partner.
LikeLike
1. UVA isn’t about the media markets per se, as UMD already brings DC. It’s about the total population in the state (which does include several top 50 markets) of 8.6M.
2. UVA is also about them being a needed cultural partner and rival for UNC, the real prize.
3. USC may be more popular in the bay area than Stanford is. UO was in 2014 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-fan-map.html). Stanford has a small and distributed fan base.
4. ND’s “rivalry” with Stanford is new and not passionate. It’s a way to guarantee ND a game in CA every year. UCLA already is set to provide this.
But if ND is joining any time soon, it’s partner will likely have to come from the P12. Then Stanford becomes a strong option (or UW or UO).
LikeLike
Stanford isn’t an ND rival, and “passion” and “rivalry” have zero to do with why ND will insist on Stanford as a condition precedent to joining the B1G. Assuring a visit to California every year is a consideration, but not the main one.
LikeLike
As Frank the Tank once said, the Big Ten would add Sam Houston State if Notre Dame came along. But if you assume ND gets over the hump of joining a conference, I steadfastly disbelieve that one particular school would make the difference in their decision. Stanford could very well be the Big Ten’s preferred 18th school anyway.
LikeLike
I’ve seen ND alumni say otherwise – that the entire point of playing Stanford is the trip to CA in the years USC comes to South Bend. That doesn’t mean the AD feels that way, but it’s what I’ve seen.
LikeLike
I just signed up for YouTube TV after a recent move. It is a better package for less money than I paid for Cable at the previous home.
LikeLike
👍
LikeLike
Yes, give Google even more access to your life. That’s a great option. And don’t worry that the YouTube channel lineup may change several times per year due to contract disputes. It dropped ESPN and all other Disney channels briefly in December. It almost lost all NBCU channels last fall. And it costs as much as cable TV anyway.
When I cut the cord again, I’ll do it completely and go back to antenna.
LikeLike
Traditional cable services have had carriage disputes too. The Disney outage lasted one whole day. You are right about the costs, though: it costs only slightly less than the closest comparable cable package.
LikeLike
Cable has fewer disputes than streamers have so far (this was 2 major ones in 2 months). As streaming matures that may settle down, but I think in this case it’s more Google trying to throw their weight around and that is unlikely to stop.
But once it costs the same as cable essentially, what’s the big advantage?
LikeLike
But once it costs the same as cable essentially, what’s the big advantage?
At some point the services might converge on both price and service. Currently, my local cable provider charges just slightly more for the channels I want. But I can’t use it in my second home, which is not in their service area. DVR is extra. A second TV is extra. All of those things are in Google’s base package for less money.
LikeLike
Google is also collecting, using, and selling your personal info and viewing habits as part of the cost.
LikeLike
Google is also collecting, using, and selling your personal info and viewing habits as part of the cost.
So is your cable company.
LikeLike
But my cable company can’t combine it with my internet history like Google can.
LikeLike
Alan is that you?
LikeLike
Mike – I wish! The attorney mentioned is the big billboard/TV lawyer in town. I went to LSU with him and have known him for 30+ years. He and some other heavy hitters have set up a high dollar Collective and he also does his own deals.
I did write the amended NIL law this past legislative session. It puts Louisiana on a more equal footing with the Texas schools, allowing for school coordination.
LikeLike
@Alan – That’s awesome Alan! Once the heavy hitters start paying for players, do you think they’ll start expecting to have a say in who plays?
LikeLike
Thanks Mike. No usually my subject matter, but I am the biggest sports nerd on staff.
We specifically shielded coaches from that scenario with the following language: “No postsecondary institution’s employees, including athletics coaching staff, shall be liable for any damages to an intercollegiate athlete’s ability to earn compensation for the use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness resulting from decisions and actions routinely taken in the course of intercollegiate athletics.”
LikeLike
Dodd’s latest:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/notre-dame-targeting-75-million-annual-media-rights-payout-in-quest-to-remain-independent/
Notre Dame would remain independent if it can earn at least $75 million annually in media rights revenue from current broadcast partner NBC, sources told CBS Sports. The Fighting Irish’s deal with the network is set to expire in 2025.
For NBC to feel comfortable raising Notre Dame’s valuation to such a level, it is seeking “shoulder programming” from a Power Five conference to enhance its college football coverage.
LikeLike
I have a hard time buying this. I can’t imagine any “shoulder programming” that ND might do with the likes of UCF, Cincy, Houston, West Virginny, Texas Tech, Baylor, etc, that would do much to enhance NBC’s college football coverage.
LikeLike
The article says the “shoulder programming” is games, so the idea is to have a lead-in game to a ND night game, or a follow-on game after a ND 2:30 start. Once CFB fans are already tuned to a channel, they’re more likely to stay there for the next game. It’s also a better way to advertise upcoming events to a broader audience than just ND fans. The goal is to get more people used to watching games on NBC.
On the other hand, ND has said that one of the best things about NBC is that they have their own network with their own announcers. ND will expect a big raise to give up that exclusivity.
LikeLike
Would other leagues be willing to start some games at 6pm ET so that the Irish can play at 2:30? We are talking about 5 games a year, so it is not a huge obstacle. Notre Dame typically has 7 home games, but usually two are at night. The Big XII would probably accept the occasional 6pm ET start if they could have Notre Dame as their lead-in.
ND has said that one of the best things about NBC is that they have their own network with their own announcers. ND will expect a big raise to give up that exclusivity.
They have indeed said that. But I never thought it meant that NBC was committed never to show any other games. I thought it only meant that every ND home game gets the same announcers, who are pretty transparently rooting for the Irish.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure ESPN has had 6pm starts before, so yes. Why not? The B12 had a 5:30 start last year. The ACC and P12 would. Even the B10 and SEC might (it’s all about price).
I don’t think it was a legal promise to not show others, but it was a status ND has had for a long time. To lose something special, they’ll ask for more money. But they’re already asking for more, so nobody will know the difference.
LikeLike
ND is said to be making $22m the year from the NBC deal . Sports rights fees always go up, but $75m would be a huge hike. Assuming 7 home games per year, that’s more than $10m per game.
LikeLike
Marc,
It is a huge jump.
But if the B10 is worth $100M per school for the same 7 home games per year plus hoops, it’s not entirely crazy to pay ND $75M. ND is the biggest brand in the sport and they play 8+ P5 games per season (5 ACC, 2 P12, 1+ rotating head to head). They also get unique TV windows.
In addition, ND still gets $10M or more from the ACC for 2.5 road games plus other sports. It’s not clear to me if that is included in the $75M or not. The article doesn’t say that it is included, but it might be from ND’s point of view. They’re making at least $25M per year less than the top schools now and seem okay with that.
LikeLike
“Assuming 7 home games per year, that’s more than $10m per game.”
Here is ND’s home schedule for 2022:
09/10 – Marshall
09/17 – California
10/15 – Stanford
10/22 – UNLV
11/05 – Clemson
11/19 – Boston College
LikeLike
Colin,
That’s not quite fair. They also have 2 neutral site games, and ND is officially the home team vs BYU.
10/8 – vs BYU in Las Vegas
So that’s 1 king + 4 other P5 schools (counting BYU) + 2 cupcakes
And for road games they have OSU, UNC, SU, Navy, and USC. There’s plenty of SOS there, and next year both OSU and USC will be home games for them so you should average that out.
LikeLike
“Colin, That’s not quite fair. They also have 2 neutral site games, and ND is officially the home team vs BYU.”
Brian, I understand that. However we’re talking about an NBC doubleheader with the Big XII. Looking over the Big XII Conference schedule, the BEST Big XII game that I can find to pair with Marshall at ND on Sept 10th is Houston at Texas Tech. Those games will be knocking heads with Bama at Texas. Kaintuck at Florida and Iowa State at Iowa.
LikeLike
My take was that the B10 is still their preference. The B12 is plan B.
But I think they could justify the $75M even without a conference. ND is vastly underpaid now, and would still be cheaper than any B10 or SEC school. That seems like a deal.
LikeLike
Looking over the Big XII Conference schedule, the BEST Big XII game that I can find to pair with Marshall at ND on Sept 10th is Houston at Texas Tech. Those games will be knocking heads with Bama at Texas. Kaintuck at Florida and Iowa State at Iowa.
Assuming NBC signs the Big XII, they would have several years to coordinate schedules to do better than that.
LikeLike
That’s not quite fair. They also have 2 neutral site games, and ND is officially the home team vs BYU.
I would look at the the 2026 and beyond schedules. There is Wisconsin (a most likely Big Ten game) Michigan St, Purdue, Clemson, FSU, Florida and Alabama. It appears the contract with USC hasn’t been extended beyond 2026 yet. Assuming the USC contract gets extended, there is most likely one or two big games a year, along with a few decent ones. Something to work with.
LikeLike
“Here is ND’s home schedule for 2022: 09/10 – Marshall 09/17 – California 10/15 – Stanford 10/22 – UNLV 11/05 – Clemson 11/19 – Boston College” “That’s not quite fair. They also have 2 neutral site games, and ND is officially the home team vs BYU.”
The point being, is ND asking for $75 million for their home games only? That is what NBC is paying for right now. If we’re comparing that to what Fox pays for Big Ten games, they are really buying home and away conference games. For example, Fox will televise both Ohio St at Wisconsin and Wisconsin at Ohio St the following year. But ND’s opening game at Ohio St won’t be available to NBC.
LikeLike
@Colin –
The point being, is ND asking for $75 million for their home games only?
Correct. They are asking for $10ish million per home game. Easily worth it for the Alabama, Florida, FSU, Clemson, and USC home games. It gets iffy in a hurry after that.
LikeLike
Colin,
Yes, they probably want $75M for just their home games. Maybe the statement was meant to include their ACC deal ($10-15M), and maybe it wasn’t.
The B10 will get 14 schools paid around $100M for 7 home games each. Sure you can say they’re really buying 11 games each from OSU, MI, PSU, WI, MSU, NE and IA, but that still works out to about $9M per game. ND is more valuable than most of the B10 schools I listed and plays a similar home schedule. If IA is worth $9M/game, surely ND is worth almost $11M.
LikeLike
The B10 rightsholders getting the away conference games of the king programs is actually rather important. You can’t just take a program in the middle of the B10 and compare with an ND home-only right package.
Especially since for tier 1/2 rights, whoever owns those rights will get the top games from a collection of king/prince programs (likely playing each other nearly every week). Not so with the ND home-only package.
LikeLike
Waiting for the other side of realignment to start getting discussed. Between escalating TV revenue for the have’s and NIL, when are we going to see schools that lose money each year on football decide that they no longer want to compete at the FBS level. You can certainly see an argument for individual Group of five schools that the grass may be greener and saner at the FCS level, but even smaller, less competitive Power 5 schools may start asking whether they can afford to stay in the arms race. We all know Chicago used to be in the Big 10. My alma mater, Carnegie Mellon (as Carnegie Tech) has a Sugar Bowl appearance and one of the most notable Notre Dame upsets out there, Duquesne used to be a power, and so on… Would anyone be surprised if some schools decide to get out of the big time football business?
LikeLike
I have wondered about that as well, but there are no recent examples of a school dropping down willingly to FCS, aside from the Idaho Vandals who had been at that level before.
LikeLike
No – but BU dropped football in 1997 and UAB dropping it in 2015 and 16
LikeLike
Stew,
Until the revenue model changes, more schools will look to move up than down. No matter that they lose money, they chase the CFP payout that comes with I-A membership. The same is true for low level D-I schools that only stay up to get he NCAA tourney paycheck. All the incentives favor being at the top level.
But structural changes are coming that may change that. First, we need to see how the next CFP deal distributes money. Second, we need to see if there is another separation coming within D-I. I-AA is a much cheaper path than I-A, and tougher criteria for staying in the top levels may be coming. Third, having to pay players could change the equation.
LikeLike
Swarbrick fan fiction to give him cover. -Big Ten here they come!
LikeLike
Well, the P5 schools aren’t losing money on sports with the explosion in TV money so they’re not dropping down.
LikeLike
Would anyone be surprised if some schools decide to get out of the big time football business?
Depends on why their school is playing football. Are they using football to drive alumni engagement? Do they value the “MACrafice” games as three and a half hour commercials to build brand awareness (how many people heard of Costal Carolina or Application St before they started playing football)? Do they use football to differentiate themselves as “big time D1 football school” from the other schools they are competing for students with? If yes, then they’ll hold on for as long as they can.
LikeLike
Only thing that was really news out of Sankey today is that the SEC isn’t actually on pause in terms of expansion, and more importantly, they’re only really looking at contiguous states or near-footprint additions.
It’s pretty obvious that they’re looking at ACC schools only at this point; nothing like Washington/Oregon is going to happen with the SEC.
So it really comes down to some group out of UNC/NC State, UVa/Va Tech, Clemson, FSU, Miami. Hard to really see anybody else that the SEC would have any interest in bringing on…
Of course, he also said that it’s up to schools to get out of their grant of rights, so Texas/OU have to negotiate an out with the Big 12 and any ACC schools will have to sort out an exit on their own.
Nothing too new here, but really just cements the reality that we’re going to be coming back for another round of expansion in a decade.
LikeLike
I suppose could include Duke maybe as well as a pair with UNC if UNC requires it.
UNC will probably be able to dictate terms (i.e. like USC asking for a full share from day 1), so I would expect they could bring along NC State or Duke to the SEC or Duke to the Big Ten if they do wish to make a choice at some point.
Either way, we’ll be discussing conference realignment for at least another 10-15 years to come at the highest level.
LikeLike
Conveniently for him, there aren’t any schools valuable enough for the SEC to add in the noncontiguous states. The rest of the P12 would lose them money just like they would for the B10. Plus they have all those ACC options anyway, and ND.
It’s an easy way to take a shot at the B10 stretching from NJ to CA, and that is a valid criticism. It’s also an us against them mentality that thrives in the deep south.
LikeLike
Yeah, I mean Big Ten’s only “Texas/OU”-like option was USC/UCLA so the contiguous thing is a silly cheapshot.
Game has completely changed so national configurations make sense.
Also as far as the tradition thing goes, Big Ten can and will play up all the historical Rose Bowl matchups which is a tradition to build on…
So it’s no big deal to me. You play the cards you have.
All really depends on how ACC-realignment-palooza goes.
LikeLike
Is it just me or does Sankey come across as extremely arrogant. I know people accused Delany of similar character but Sankey is more direct with it I feel. He tries to present that he is the inclusive guy but everything is always about him.
I can’t see Delany ever saying his new conference expansion was better than the SEC etc. He did make a jab against their academics at one point but that was factual at the time.
LikeLike
If there is much of a difference (in arrogance) between Sankey and Delany, it is so skinny that I can’t drive a toothpick between them.
LikeLike
I mean Big Ten’s only “Texas/OU”-like option was USC/UCLA so the contiguous thing is a silly cheapshot.
Nothing cheap about it. If the Big Ten had contiguous additions available that were comparable to TX/OU, it would have made them too. The huge distances are not ideal.
Game has completely changed so national configurations make sense.
I hope it makes sense. No one has made it work yet. Travel for the two California schools will be undeniably bad, especially for the non-revenue sports. Good luck to UCLA baseball.
Texas and Oklahoma are moving to a situation that is almost certainly better for them in every way that seriously matters, other than maybe losing the Bedlam rivalry. In contrast, I think USC and UCLA would probably rather not have moved, if only the Pac-12 were not so hopeless.
LikeLike
I’m guessing UCLA hosts a lot of baseball games early in the season, then travel to the midwest mostly in April. And they’ll probably crush everyone. Same with softball. Heck, just give them all home games so they get a good record and the B10 gets a national seed regularly.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34264518/sources-big-12-pac-12-partner-talks-officially-end
Talks about a B12/P12 partnership have stopped after the B12 ended them. They just don’t see enough added revenue to bother with it.
LikeLike
I think we’re going to see a heavy push from the Big 12 to take the 4-6 schools that it wants (2 AZ/Utah/Colorado and then Oregon/Washington).
TV people probably told them they’d have to cut the dead weight out of the Pac-12 to make this worth it.
LikeLike
I don’t see why the Pac wouldn’t raid the B12.
Basically, UW and UO (assuming they’re not headed to the B10, which is my assumption) get to dictate what conference the good programs join and who gets to be in it.
And while those 2 programs might abandon their little siblings for the B10, I doubt that they would for the B12, as the Pac + the best of the B12 would make at least as much as the B12 + the best of the Pac.
LikeLike
Actually, neither the Pac or B12 are stronger enough than the other for much raiding to occur. When the difference in payout between the Pac and B12 is as small as they will be now, stuff like century-old natural rivalries and expense of flying non-revenue athletes far away start to matter again.
So if anything happens, it will just be the Pac adding SDSU and Fresno to get back more of a CA presence.
LikeLike
Yeah I mean given none of these partnerships really work financially (everyone here realized there wasn’t much money in alliances/partnerships anyhow), the only possibility is realignment.
But in terms of $, the only things that probably help anyone are targeted moves:
ACC might try to take Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-4 others (Stanford/Cal/Colorado/Arizona or Utah), but is the $ there for that to work?
Big 12 would probably want Washington/Oregon and 2-4 others to give it a much broader footprint and some tentpole brands (until they can find better spots).
Pac-12’s expansion options are limited; staying at 10 seems to be the best thing so they’re not splitting a limited pie more ways, but the only realistic expansion possibility looks like 2-4 from the Big 12 financially: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State or something like that.
LikeLike
IMO, the per capita difference between the ACC, new Pac, and new B12 simply won’t be enough for any schools to want to break century-old natural rivalries (and anger a lot of fans/alums) + ship their non-revenue athletes across the country. We’re talking about a few million at most, not over 50mm/year, and what little extra money they gain will almost certainly be lost by the extra travel and angry fans/alums. In fact, pretty much every school would likely lose more money if they wrecked tradition and started flying non-revenue athletes across the country.
LikeLike
ACC might try to take Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-4 others (Stanford/Cal/Colorado/Arizona or Utah), but is the $ there for that to work?
The ACC TV contract is not public, but I think they can re-open if they add members. I can see how that helps the ACC, but how does it help the Pac schools? Is there enough money for them to make up for the inconvenience of a bi-coastal league?
Big 12 would probably want Washington/Oregon and 2-4 others to give it a much broader footprint and some tentpole brands (until they can find better spots).
Yes, that is the power move, but they would have to be ruthless enough to dump the low performers. So far, that is the emergency glass on the alarm box that nobody has broken.
LikeLike
It’s not a matter of ruthlessness.
Unless someone shows numbers showing otherwise, it seems to me that the per capita difference wouldn’t be enough to make any move worthwhile.
LikeLike
It’s not a matter of ruthlessness. Unless someone shows numbers showing otherwise, it seems to me that the per capita difference wouldn’t be enough to make any move worthwhile.
I am suggesting that if you combine the Big XII and Pac-10, then jettison the worst 8–10 programs, perhaps those remaining make more, because so much dead wood is eliminated. But that is a level of ruthlessness we have not seen in modern times. I am not predicting or advocating for this.
LikeLike
Ah. Well, the thing is, there’s not actually a lot of pure deadwood in the remaining Pac or B12. There’s no WFU or Rice (or Vandy). I suppose there’s OrSt., But again, would UO be willing to suffer the negative consequences of ending that rivalry and extra travel costs for _maybe_ a few million more a year?
Virtually everyone left in those 2 conferences have at times been good enough to be a decent TV draw (or have other strengths like a NoCal location or KU basketball). And on the flip side, there’s not some collection of powerhouse programs that would increase per capita ratings a lot. UO and UW lead the pack, but someone on YouTube actually looked at the average TV ratings of the non-LA Pac schools when they played each other (not the LA schools) and average ratings were all about in the same range.
LikeLike
The B12 has a sizable exit fee unrelated to their GOR. I can’t see joining the P12 to be worth $80-90M up front. It makes them hard to poach.
LikeLike
z33k,
I think the ACC, B12, and P12 all have to wait to hear from the networks about what their future deals might be worth in various scenarios first. The P12’s 30 day window for ESPN and Fox doesn’t end until August, then CBS/NBC/others can chime in. Only after that would realignment plans make any sense.
I’m not convinced substantial revenue differences between the 3 conferences will really exits in their current alignment. Why move for $5-10M per year, when you risk upsetting fans?
The most valuable schools are probably UW and UO, but they also seem the least likely to me to join the B12 or ACC due to distance. Adding just the 4 corners schools doesn’t add much, if any, revenue to the B12. I think a major gain would only come from the top brands left combining and dropping the lesser brands from all 3 conferences (maybe not ACC if all the top schools go B10/SEC).
LikeLike
Talks about a B12/P12 partnership have stopped after the B12 ended them. They just don’t see enough added revenue to bother with it.
Also mentioned…any potential ACC deal is also on hold for similar reasons: the revenue is not there.
So if anything happens, it will just be the Pac adding SDSU and Fresno to get back more of a CA presence.
I strongly suspect that SDSU and Fresno do not bring enough juice, and they will stay at 10, assuming no further departures.
LikeLike
Yeah I agree that SDSU/Fresno are unlikely, dividing up $300 million (give or take) 10 ways is a lot better than 12 ways.
They’re not getting extra tv money for SDSU/Fresno.
LikeLike
That’s silly. SD and the Central Valley are not worth nothing and it’s not like those programs have zero fans (they’re not Rice). They may still not be worth adding but let’s not pretend that those programs have zero value.
LikeLike
From a TV standpoint, they have 0 value.
Any added value is negated by reduced play between other schools that might drive ratings.
Better to stay at 10 with round Robin.
The games SDSU/Fresno would add are just basic inventory with no real added value.
I just don’t see the value to expansion for them.
LikeLike
It’s not that they are worth zero. They need to be worth more than the average per school that the Pac-12 can get without them. Otherwise, they reduce the payout for everybody else.
When the Big XII was at 10 schools, they looked at a bunch of expansion candidates and concluded that none would add enough value. SDSU was one of those they rejected. Not sure about Fresno State, but it’s probably the less coveted of the two.
LikeLike
The problem is schools like SDSU, Fresno State are worth considerably less than average.
If you’re projecting $300 million across the current Pac-10, then what does that become if you add SDSU/Fresno State?
$310 million across 12 schools ($25.83 million each)? Maybe $320 million across 12 schools ($26.66 million each) at best?
The slices of the pie are shrinking at that point compared to standing pat with $300 million across 10 schools ($30 million each).
Is getting extra visits to California worth that? Pretty clear the answer should be no.
I think Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might be the only two worth even considering for the Pac-12 but not clear they can grab those 2 even given money is probably going to end up pretty equal.
LikeLike
“I think Oklahoma State and Texas Tech might be the only two worth even considering for the Pac-12”
BYU and Boise State make a lot more sense.
LikeLike
Marc, sure, you can certainly make the case that SDSU and Fresno don’t, on net, add _enough_ value, and I didn’t dispute that. But Zeek says they have zero TV value, so Zeek, can you tell me why those 2 schools are receiving any TV money right now? Because it certainly seems stupid to me to be paying schools that are worth zero, according to you, any TV money at all.
So are the TV networks being stupid or are you?
LikeLike
And again, I’m not arguing that it makes sense for the Pac to add those 2 schools, just that saying they have zero value is silly and dishonest.
LikeLike
Zeek corrected himself. He acknowledged they are not worth literally zero; but very likely below the average of the remaining ten Pac schools, and hence not worth adding.
LikeLike
BYU and Boise State make a lot more sense.
You could be right about BYU, but almost certainly not about Boise, which the Big XII already rejected multiple times.
LikeLike
Fresno State and SDSU have way less than $30 million tv value per school.
They’re getting what right now, $2 million per school in that MW deal?
Putting them in the Pac-12 gets that to what? You’re diluting matchups for the other 10 teams by adding them.
So the contract goes from $300 million for 10 teams to what? $310 million for 12 or $320 million for 12.
Is extra trips to Cali worth $4 million less per school?
LikeLike
Not sure I see the value in Boise State or BYU for the Pac-12. BYU’s brand is strongest in Utah and they already have that with UU. It’s sorta of a bit more national I guess, especially when they’re good, but how much is that worth.
BYU’s current ESPN deal from a few years ago is worth around $5 million a year from their revenue numbers.
Boise State’s brand only really matters when they’re top 10 good and that was a decade ago.
Those are maybe a bit better for the TV product than Fresno State and SDSU, but is that $60 million a year good? You’re not really adding more markets or teams that pull better in places that they need.
Which is why I think Texas Tech + Oklahoma State would probably be better for the Pac-12. Gets you a lot more eyeballs in the Texas/Oklahoma area and Oklahoma State recruits Texas well.
I can also see the money being at least even for those 2 as additions and you take arguably 2 of the most important schools out of the Big 12.
LikeLike
“Not sure I see the value in Boise State or BYU for the Pac-12.”
I’ve tried posting this response twice but it flat-out refuses to appear. I’ll try again without the link.
“If Boise State manages to remain a candidate for the Pac-12 or Big 12 after the realignment smoke clears, there are those making a case for them. Example: Zach Miller of Medium.com, who points out that the TV appeal argument is not about market size but actual TV viewership. Miller studied available viewership data from the five-year span of 2015-19, leaving out the 2020 COVID year. Boise State was 64th with 476,000 average viewers, more than double that of any other Mountain West school and tops among those who’ll be in the Group of 5 after next year.
“Then came 2021, with the Broncos at 675,000 average viewers. San Diego State had 198,000 and Fresno State 45,000. In an article headlined “What’s next for college football realignment?” The Athletic had this: “Boise State moves the TV needle more than anyone left in the Group of 5. TV value, more than anything else, drives realignment now, and Boise State still has some.” I would say this is the key reason: the Broncos have a streak of 24 consecutive winning seasons, more than any other program in the country.”
LikeLike
MW teams get a little over $4mm/school right now, I believe. SDSU and Fresno certainly above the average. They may still not be worth it to the Pac, but they aren’t worth nothing.
As for the Pac adding OKSU and TTech, what’s in it for those schools? They’re not going to trade games in TX (where they both recruit heavily and where they have a ton of alums) to fly non-revenue teams farther away if the per capita TV difference is just a few million a year (which would likely be more than swamped from extra costs and loss in fanbase/alumni support).
LikeLike
@Colin
Fair point re: TV viewership for Boise State, but just not sure how the numbers justify the payouts we’re talking about…
It’s just hard to make the numbers work. Power 5 is stretched thin on membership at this point and needs to be downsized.
Big Ten/SEC are forcing the issue by forcing consolidation/rationalization of the sport.
LikeLike
“Fair point re: TV viewership for Boise State”
IMHO the Pac-10 will fare better if they round up some western schools (no pun intended) vs bringing in “eastern” Big XII or ACC members. BYU, Boise St, UNLV, Colorado State and AFA may not be the brands that Texas Tech and Houston are but they’re a heck of a lot closer and may bring in more eyeballs for the Pac-12 Network.
Don’t forget that the Pac-12 Network is now even more of a train wreck after losing USC & UCLA.
LikeLike
I’m assuming in any Pac-12/ESPN deal that ESPN will take over the Pac-12 Networks and fold them down to 1 national network (and ESPN+).
Pac-12 Networks is effectively dead as currently instituted in 2 years I’d guess.
LikeLike
The PAC tried to play nice, but now is the time to invite 10 to end the ACC. The Costal 20.
Florida St
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UNC
Duke
NC ST
UVA
VT
Louisville
LikeLike
If there are additional defections to the Big Ten/SEC then move into Texas with TCU/Houston. If more needed, then think about Kansas, West Virginia, and Iowa St. .
LikeLike
Mike,
First, that plan would require ESPN saying the AP20 would get paid a lot more than the ACC is now.
Second, 11 votes would need to be enough to dissolve the ACC and avoid the GOR.
Third, I think they’d demand a lengthy GOR to keep the football brands on board. Or else the plan is really to accept losing 2-7 of those ACC schools to the B10 and SEC and backfill from the B12 (OkSU, TT, Baylor, KU, WV, UC, TCU). While it wouldn’t equal the P2, it would be the clear #3 conference and probably pay reasonably well.
LikeLike
First, that plan would require ESPN saying the AP20 would get paid a lot more than the ACC is now.
Since the PAC’s deal is nearly up, they could take the entire package to market.
Second, 11 votes would need to be enough to dissolve the ACC and avoid the GOR.
The Louisville Courier Journal reported that it only takes a majority vote to dissolve the ACC.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2022/07/15/josh-heird-louisville-acc-looking-for-espn-to-look-at-media-rights-deal/65373480007/
While it wouldn’t equal the P2, it would be the clear #3 conference and probably pay reasonably well.
I agree!
LikeLike
All ACC schools want out . . .
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/clay-travis-acc-schools-all-want-out-acc
LikeLike
A typical Clay Travis piece.
The schools don’t necessarily want out of the ACC, though. What many of them really want is to be paid like the B10 and SEC will staying in the ACC. But that isn’t a realistic option. The less desirable schools probably want the ACC to stay together. They know neither the B10 nor SEC wants them, so once the ACC fractures they are in trouble.
Travis rightly notes that after ND makes their decision, the big question is where UNC and UVA go. If the SEC, he thinks it’ll be UVA, VT, UNC and NCSU to make 20. If they choose the B10, he thinks the SEC will go with VT, NCSU, Clemson, and FSU to keep the B10 at bay. He thinks the SEC might even be willing to take 7 (UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, GT and FSU) to protect their territory.
It may be noteworthy that he doesn’t think the SEC will chase Miami – small fan base, private, 3rd in the state.
Where he goes off the rails is his predicted B10 response if the SEC sweeps the south – Syracuse, Duke, Pitt, and either BC or Miami (1 less if ND comes). Pitt brings nothing, SU isn’t research focused and doesn’t bring much. Duke is a great school and hoops brand, but their football stinks and they don’t carry much weight in NC. And BC vs Miami isn’t even a choice – neither is AAU, but Miami is closer to it and is in FL. BC is about 10th in the pecking order in Boston.
After the B10 and SEC take schools, he thinks the rest will join the B12.
So the big question that’s hanging out there, ultimately, is this: Where do UNC and UVA see their long range futures? Do they want to align with the Southern schools or do they want to join the Big Ten? It’s a cultural, academic and business decision for both institutions. Do they want road trips to Texas, Alabama and Tennessee or do they want to be playing yearly games in Michigan, Wisconsin and, potentially, Los Angeles? Remember, the Big Ten took Maryland several years ago with the idea that taking Maryland was going to lead to Virginia and North Carolina too. That didn’t happen.
So while everyone is looking at the Pac-12 and the Big 12, the two biggest state battlegrounds to come aren’t states located in either of those conferences: they’re Virginia and North Carolina. At some point, if they aren’t already, those schools and states will officially be in play for the SEC and the Big Ten. And when that happens, look out – the ACC will cease to exist.
LikeLike
Mike,
I’ve seen that reported in multiple places. I even linked one article here that explained it. But I don’t really believe it, since the argument is that there is no by-law explaining the dissolution process so relevant NC charity regulations apply. I’d prefer to see a quoted by-law, or even an expert legal opinion that the charity rule applies, before I truly believe it. I just struggle to imagine the old guard adding so many new members that it only takes a couple of old members making a voting bloc with the newbies to dissolve the ACC entirely. Especially with FSU and Clemson being so unhappy for a while.
LikeLike
@Brian –
I’ve seen that reported in multiple places. I even linked one article here that explained it. But I don’t really believe it, since the argument is that there is no by-law explaining the dissolution process so relevant NC charity regulations apply. I’d prefer to see a quoted by-law, or even an expert legal opinion that the charity rule applies, before I truly believe it. I just struggle to imagine the old guard adding so many new members that it only takes a couple of old members making a voting bloc with the newbies to dissolve the ACC entirely. Especially with FSU and Clemson being so unhappy for a while.
Sorry, I had missed that article. I try to read all of the comments, but sometimes they get lost in the mix. Since its so widely reported, I am a bit surprised the ACC hasn’t denied the story “on background.” Seems like an easy enough thing to do.
If I were making my Costal Conference, FSU and Clemson would be my first two calls. Get them on board and build out from there.
LikeLike
“Talks about a B12/P12 partnership have stopped after the B12 ended them. They just don’t see enough added revenue to bother with it.”
Did they not see enough revenue added…or did they realize that part of the money gained would come from the fact that a combined conference would need roughly half as many administrators as they do separately?
“It’s a shame that you’ll be out of a job when this sensible merger goes through”…
“Wait, I though you were the one who was going to be out of a job?”…
…
“We’re at an impasse!”
LikeLike
The fact that the Big 12 decided against merger with the Pac 12 suggests they plan some sort of poaching.
One obvious move is Colorado/Utah/Arizona/Arizona St to the Big 12. That brings Colorado back into the fold; adds good quality academic programs to go with ISU, Kansas, and Kansas St.; adds good quality athletic programs; produces a relatively compact geographic conference.
Of course, that reduces the Pac 12 to six schools, at least four of whom would need a new home, possibly the B1G.
LikeLike
Well, that’s assuming that those Pac teams want to move.
Considering that UW and UO are probably the biggest brands left in both the Pac and B12, all those schools heavily recruit CA, and the per capita payout in the new B12 may even be lower than the per capita payout in the new Pac (I would be shocked if it is a lot more), I don’t see why any poaching attempt would be successful.
LikeLike
In addition, I don’t see those schools wanting to walk away from Cal and Stanford. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a school leave an academically superior conference. The closest we got was A&M + 1 moving to the SEC, but that made the new SEC better than the old Big 12.
LikeLike
That was part of the value of Missouri as the +1. By taking Missouri with A&M, they were tipping the balance and making the SEC a stronger academic league than the Big 12.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 adds Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon like is bring talked about then they would have 6 AAU schools, btw. Which would be decent.
Although honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal went ot the ACC instead.
LikeLike
The reported payout per team for the Pac 12 is only $25 million per year per school. An expanded Big 12 is likely going to get at least 50% more than that. I would not be surprised if some Pac 12 schools left for the Big 12. But maybe the Pac 12 can expand and stay together. I doubt it, but it’s not impossible.
LikeLike
Where are you getting that “likely going to get at least 50% more than ($25mm per capita)*” from?
Texas and OU took a huge chunk of the old B12’s value with them. UW and UO have had the best TV ratings of the remaining teams in both the Pac and B12.
So how exactly is the B12 going to top the new Pac per capita?
* I actually think the new Pac will end up more about $30mm/school.
LikeLike
Rumors I’m seeing are that the Pac will get 25 million and the Big 12 will get at least 35 million. We’ll see if that comes to pass, but that’s what people are saying.
LikeLike
We haven’t seen any good estimates on the Big 12.
Navigate has these questionable estimates of $40 million per school, but there’s no basis provided.
Based on the markets that the Big 12 controls (and is 2nd in) as well as the schools in the conference, it’s hard to make a case that it’s somehow materially more valuable than the Pac-12.
Timezone/location is better and the schools are currently better at football, but that’s not all that goes into the equation.
LikeLike
I’ve seen an analysis that show Oklahoma St. and TCU have had better ratings over 5 years than anyone in the Pac but USC.
LikeLike
bullet,
If it’s the one I’m thinking of, it was with games against UT and OU every year. Plus TCU had a huge boost from their Ohio State game. The P12 only had 1 king in conference to boost ratings.
https://theathletic.com/3410274/2022/07/08/college-football-realignment-tv-viewers/
Andy Staples looked at the ratings for 6 years (2015-19, 2021) for all the non-B10/ND/SEC schools and counted the number of games with 1M viewers or more. He excluded all games against ND or teams in or moving to the B10 or SEC, as well as excluding those already moving from the list.
From 2015-19 and in 2021 there were 914 rated regular-season (no conference title games) televised games not involving Notre Dame or anyone who will be in the Big Ten or SEC.
• 284 of those games drew more than a million viewers. (By contrast, 732 of 951 games involving the Big Ten, SEC and/or Notre Dame drew more than one million viewers.)
• 117 games drew more than two million viewers.
• 47 games drew more than three million viewers.
• 27 games drew more than four million viewers.
• 14 games drew more than five million viewers.
• Of those, six were the Army-Navy game.
Games – Team:
34 – Clemson
31 – Florida State
28 – Washington
26 – Oregon
22 – Miami
21 – Washington State
19 – Oklahoma State, Utah
18 – Louisville, Stanford
16 – North Carolina
15 – Baylor, Colorado, Virginia Tech
14 – TCU, West Virginia
13 – Arizona State, Boise State
12 – BYU, Cal, Pittsburgh
11 – Cincinnati, NC State
10 – Syracuse
9 – Texas Tech, UCF, Virginia
8 – Houston, USF, Wake Forest
7 – Army, Boston College, Iowa State, Navy
6 – Arizona, Georgia Tech, Memphis
5 – Duke
4 – Kansas State, SMU, Temple
3 – Oregon State
2 – Air Force, Colorado State, Kansas, Marshall, Tulsa, UConn, Utah State
1 – Alcorn State, Appalachian State, Coastal Carolina, FAU, Kent State, N.C. Central, Rice, San Diego State, Nevada, Tulane
So by conference:
B10/ND/SEC – 732/951 = 77.0%, 28.8 per school average (ND was 67/68)
ACC – 204/14 = 14.6 per school
B12 – 70/8 = 8.8 per school
* New additions averaged 10.0 per school outside of the B12
* New B12 – 110/12 = 9.2 per school
P12 – 161/10 = 16.1 per school
3 P12 schools before the first B12 school, OkSU, with a 4th tied.
Another P12 school before the 6th P12 school is tied with the 2nd B12 school, Baylor.
Then the 3rd and 4th B12 schools before the 7th and 8th P12 schools, with a future 5th B12 member tied.
I think that pretty clearly shows that the P12 schools have the viewership edge, at least in 1M viewer games. There could be a lot of games in the 900k – 1.1M range that make these results give a skewed impression.
After saying Clemson averaged 2.6M viewers.
Atlantic Division (RIP) rival Florida State drew a median audience of 1.9 million in 49 rated games over the same period. The only other schools in that neighborhood were Oregon (1.9 million), Washington (1.6 million) and Louisville (1.6 million).
Other tidbits:
UNC = 1.2M average, NCSU = 1.1M
UVA = 1.4M, VT = 0.97M
LikeLike
Andrew, where are you seeing those rumors from?
The B12’s biggest advantage is TX and the fact that people in TX are crazy about all types of football (the whole B12 territory is crazier about football than most of the Pac territory). But all the current B12 schools are either located in small states or are 2nd/3rd tier in terms of fanbase in their home state.
So yeah, I’ll be shocked if the per capita difference turns out to be as big as what you’re hearing.
LikeLike
I’ll bet the B-12 wishes they could take those invitations to Houston, UCF & Cincy back. Then they could try to poach Washington, Oregon, Arizona, AZ State, Utah & Colorado ( and maybe San Diego State to have a presence in CA). That’s a decent conference on par with the ACC.
LikeLike
I posit that the Big XII still wants those schools, even if they could poach four more from the Pac-12 (which it is far from clear they can).
LikeLike
Would an 8 school Big 12 be able to pull off those invites though?
Schools like Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State are/were a lot more worried about other schools leaving that group of 8 as opposed to the position where they are now.
The 6 Pac-12 schools are more valuable than the Big 12’s additions, but given the dire straits the Big 12 was in trying to present itself as a Power 5, it was hard/untenable for them not to poach the AAC.
AAC was trying to invite the Big 12 schools in a similar fashion to what we’re seeing with the Big 12 targeting Pac-12 schools.
LikeLike
Bob,
Did you really mean to include KSU as a “good quality academic program”? I wouldn’t consider them one.
LikeLike
Best expansion scenario for the Pac-12 is probably to revive their Pac-16 (would be 14 this time) idea with Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Houston, Kansas.
That would probably break even financially while kneecapping the Big 12 by taking a better position than it would have in Texas and getting good exposure into the central time zone.
I doubt that Oklahoma State has any interest in it… but if they were willing to move, that’s the idea that strengthens the Pac-12 the most.
Hard to see the benefits of other Pac-12 expansion scenarios, if they’re going to expand the only way it works financially is a raid of the most valuable Big 12 properties in the central time zone.
The other schools like Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, SDSU, UNLV don’t bring anywhere near the value that a raid of OkSU, Texas Tech, Houston, Kansas would bring imo.
LikeLike
I can see TCU and Houston and that’s about it. I’m not sure Oklahoma St can sustain the success they’ve had under Gundy, especially since he’s wanted out for a while. West Texas and Northern Oklahoma bring nothing in recruiting and OSU and Texas Tech are probably the hardest P5 schools to actually get to. You could probably convince me that Iowa St (surprisingly large fan base) and Kansas would be additive, but right now I only see those two.
LikeLike
OK, we’re in silly season now.
The simple fact of the matter is that, besides ND, all of the really big-time brands and markets (and some in the tier below that) have already been taken off the board. None of the ACC/B12/Pac are getting anything on the order of Texas/USC (or even arguably A&M/UCLA). They aren’t adding Nebraska or the NYC/LA/DC markets.
The most desirable of what’s left are Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, UO, UW, and maybe the NoCal schools (for that market). If those schools combined in to a conference, they _might_ be able to get a bit more than the Pac/ACC/B12 per capita payout. But possibly not even with extra travel costs and backlash by their fans over ending traditional rivalries.
With their per capita payouts likely being similar to each other, I just don’t see any poaching being done by any of those 3 conferences of schools in the other 2.
LikeLike
Oh, and OU is also off the board. Anyway, when considering conference moves, you have to think how the schools would think. They’re not going to break traditional rivalries, increase travel costs, and abandon tradition recruiting grounds for a net neutral move or something close to it.
LikeLike
To build even more on this, we have seen 2 rules with conference expansion:
1. The B10 and SEC poach from the lesser P5 (or lower in the case of RU).
2. The lesser P5 poaches from the G5/BE.
The only lesser P5 to lesser P5 move was by CU when the B12 looked unstable and because they have more ties to CA than TX or the Midwest now.
All these proposed scenarios where schools break traditional rivalries, abandon traditional recruiting grounds, and increase travel costs to end up with about the same net income make no sense.
LikeLike
You are correct: schools do not move unless they are going to make substantially more.
LikeLike
Perhaps that was true in the past, but we’re potentially at a much more cut-throat part of the realignment cycle.
Before last year, everything was more regional/around the edges/anchors didn’t leave conferences, it was more the peripheral schools that had brand value/markets moved (i.e. Maryland, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, Colorado).
In just the last 12 months, 2 of the Power 5 conferences lost their most valuable pair of teams.
And the ACC has a huge target on it as the last one with its anchor (UNC) sitting there ripe for the picking.
I just think if we’re going to see lateral moves, this is probably the part of the cycle where you would. This is when the ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 have to probably figure out how to position themselves as the #3 to the Big Ten/SEC’s Power 2.
ACC is in a holding pattern for another decade+, but the moment they lose 2-6 teams, things go south for them too.
It’s the same reason why USC/UCLA was such an obvious next set of movers after Texas/OU.
If we’re in the “end cycle” of realignment, then you’d expect shuffling to figure out who’s the strongest after the Big Ten/SEC. If that means the Pac-12 should go after Texas Tech/TCU/Houston/Oklahoma State/Kansas to nuke the Big 12 by taking all their Southwest schools except Baylor, then do it.
Obviously, the money may not be a significant change, but I think there’d be value to those schools in reducing the Power 5 down to a Power 2 + 2 and then further down to a Power 2 + 1 after the ACC is raided.
LikeLike
I love both the BIG and PAC and hate the USC/UCLA move! However, I believe your synopsis of next move for the PAC is the best I have read here. The goal now becomes to be one of the surviving ‘middle two’ conferences. The PAC still needs to get into the central time zone and your additions will do that. How about adding Tulane for the 6th addition? Sorry Loki.
LikeLike
On behalf of Tulane, we accept!
LikeLike
If the amount of money won’t be much different, where’s the value in wrecking your fan’s top rivalries and increasing travel costs?
Your thinking strikes me as one of “4 16-school conference” scenarios. Fantasy that can’t happen in a world with self-interested entities. Conferences may try to poach but schools won’t decide to move unless it is clearly in their self-interest. I just don’t see schools taking a certain hit in losing top rivalry games and increasing travel costs for some vague maybe possible benefit that might not even exist.
LikeLike
Anything is possible for what the mix might look like (including SDSU for a South California school or BYU or Tulane or whoever really fits the bill).
Regardless, I feel as if the the Pac-12 has to make a move on the Texas/Oklahoma State group of schools.
Taking Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas (and maybe TCU as well) is a logical result for the Pac-12 here if they can make the numbers work.
Pac-12 schools need Central time zone exposure; they need better time slots for games.
The Pac-12 is in extreme danger of being a complete afterthought without the LA schools. If Oregon has a slide into mediocrity, it’s really hard for that conference to figure into the national picture.
That’d change if they become the #2 conference in the Texas/Oklahoma area as well.
To me, if I’m Oregon/Washington, I’d tell ESPN and Cal/Stanford that there’s no alternative but to figure out a way to grab 4-6 of the most valuable schools out there and gut the Big 12.
LikeLike
@Richard
I think it will impact $ later on; as we see further consolidation, the Pac-12 is likely in the worst spot to further boost itself because of its geography it can only target the Big 12’s Texas/Oklahoma State schools.
Big 12 will likely target ACC scraps (like Pitt, Louisville, etc.) after the Big Ten/SEC move on the ACC schools.
Pac-12 is in the worst possible spot if they stay at 10 imo.
I think it’ll matter down the road in 10 or 20 years if the Pac-12 decides to stay at 10. I have no idea how long-run they’re thinking, but it’d be short-sighted to think the Pac-12 can remain in the fight for #3 behind the Big Ten/SEC if they stand pat.
If the Big 12 takes some ACC scraps, they can position themselves as the clear #3. That leaves the Pac-12 as an afterthought if Oregon ever goes through a period of mediocrity.
And if Oregon/Washington leave in the mid-2030s, where does that leave Colorado/Utah/AZ/etc. if the Big 12 bulks up with ACC schools?
LikeLike
If the leftover Pac schools add value, the B12 would still add them. I don’t think conferences have a set ceiling on number of members that some people here seem to think, and it’s not like the new B12 with some leftover ACC members has some ancient traditional bonds amongst all members that they would be sacrificing by adding some leftover Pac schools.
LikeLike
I feel as if the the Pac-12 has to make a move on the Texas/Oklahoma State group of schools…Pac-12 is in the worst possible spot if they stay at 10 imo.
I suspect this is true, and yet, there might not be a move that makes financial sense. The Texas/Oklahoma schools do not want a steady diet of games in the Pacific time zone. The kids they recruit don’t crave that either. To overcome that, you have to pay them a LOT more than they could make in the Big XII.
I think the money is just not there. The Big XII called off discussions with the Pac-12 after a few days of discussion. This suggests that this is not a close call: it doesn’t make sense for them. Without the TX/OK schools, the Pac-12’s only other expansion option is with schools even farther down the pecking order that definitely cannot pay for themselves, like San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise State, and so on.
LikeLike
Yeah I can understand that point Marc, I just don’t know how the “4 corner” schools get the stability/security that they need in the mid/long-term.
They know the Big Ten may come back for Washington/Oregon and/or Stanford if Notre Dame gives up its independence.
Hard for them to feel like the current 10 school Pac-12 is secure.
LikeLike
UNC isn’t as valuable as Texas or USC (or OU’s football brand), but I’d put them above anybody else that’s changed conferences in the last 15 years.
Not a slight against Texas A&M either which is closest in value, but UNC is the anchor of the ACC and the strongest school brand in the Mid-Atlantic between Penn State and Georgia.
Big Ten and SEC would both offer full shares on day 1 to UNC.
LikeLike
I disagree. Being the anchor of the ACC doesn’t mean that UNC is worth more than A&M. It just means that the ACC isn’t close to the B10 or SEC in value.
LikeLike
There’s a lot that goes into realignment, not just tv $ value and football brand value; having a school as valuable as UNC (flagship of a state of 10+ million with the basketball brand/Jordan ties) located in one of the 4 most important growth regions of the country is hugely valuable in and of itself.
May not quite be as valuable for TV $ as say FSU or Miami would probably be and isn’t anywhere near the anchors of the Big Ten or SEC but still has huge value in and of itself.
And the fact that it’s located right between the two conferences speaks to its geostrategic value.
LikeLike
A&M still more valuable.
LikeLike
We all need to be a bit more humble in our beliefs about what conferences would supposedly do — everyone here has been wrong a fair percentage of the time.
I don’t know if the Big Ten would offer UNC+1 a full share from the outset. But I am pretty sure that, if they did, it would be their first expansion that lost money for its members. There are many intangibles that figure into the decision, and they all matter, but no conference yet has volunteered to lose money.
Supposedly iron-clad rules are falling these, so I will not suggest that anything is sacred. It is certainly possible they would make an exception this one time.
LikeLike
That’s true but I think it depends on what assumptions you make about when they’d theoretically switch conferences (if it ever comes to pass).
It’s fairly predictable that 2036 is the date when they’d exit the ACC for another conference.
Knowing that, I could easily see the Big Ten or SEC being able to structure their next media deals to accomodate pro-rate increases to the various contracts for the right expansion opportunities in 2036 (both BTN and SECN deals will also be up for renegotiation around then).
I agree 100% that there won’t be an expansion scenario that results in financial losses to the conference/schools, but there’s probably ways to properly structure it so that UNC could enter as a full member.
Also depends on if ND is added to the equation.
LikeLike
We haven’t been in silly season for the past decade or more? It sure feels like we have been.
LikeLike
BEHOLD! -My ’20/24-Either-Or-Plan’ -Bwaaahaa! After the ND/Stanford addition, bring in desperate Oregon/Washington on a (lowball) Ruters-like protracted payout schedule, then, when the ACC comes into play, battle the SEC for N. Carolina, with Duke as our sweetener. Since I believe Miami is going to still be on the board, add them (for a very valuable Florida foothold). Then bring in Cal at #24 to make it a six solid pod in the West , balancing the UNC/Maryland/Duke/Rutgers/Miami/Penn St. Eastern pod. If, however the SEC prevails in its pursuit of UNC, the B1G stays at 20. A true powerhouse of academic and athletic excellence.
LikeLike
Nah, a 22 or 26-school B10 with ND, Stanford, Cal, UW, Miami, GTech, (and UNC, Duke, UVa, and BC if UNC and UVa sign on) that rivals the Ivy League academically and also dominates the sport of the future: E-Sports.
LikeLike
Nah, though I give you points for creativity on that 22 or 26 number. BC? Enough said.
LikeLike
Big XII – Big 12 talks end.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34264518/sources-big-12-pac-12-partner-talks-officially-end
LikeLike
This is what happens when I post in cocktail hour. Should be: Big XII – Pac-12 talks end.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/07/19/Colleges/UCLA.aspx
UCLA’s move to the B10 may be good for the Rose Bowl (stadium, not game).
LikeLike
It’s nice that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum got renovated significantly this past decade.
LikeLike
You always want to fix your home up before you sell it. Fresh paint and new flooring can go a long way, and new bathrooms always help. The Rose Bowl game makes for excellent staging.
LikeLike
I wonder what the Rose Bowl game will become? It has not been an exclusively Big Ten/Pac-12 game for years now, but still usually hosts those two leagues when the playoff doesn’t interfere.
Now that the Pac-12 has lost its two most valuable programs, I doubt that the Big Ten will insist on playing them in the postseason. I suspect the Rose Bowl game will be a permanent quarterfinal at the traditional time on New Year’s Day. Maybe the Big Ten will try to insist that its champ always plays its quarterfinal at the Rose Bowl. The SEC would then probably get a similar rule with the Sugar Bowl.
LikeLike
Now that the Big XII and Pac-12 won’t be hooking up, Canzano thinks the Pac-12 will be looking at the ACC. In his view, that is what the Pac-12 should have been looking at all along. Link: https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-big-12-doesnt-fit
The ACC schools are a better cultural fit with the Pac-12, but I still don’t see how this makes more money for ESPN, which ultimately is what this is all about. The ACC already has a full menu of non-conference P5 games. Substituting different ones from the Pac-12 does not make the ACC more valuable. All it means is they travel farther for roughly the same quality of content.
Canzano suggests the Pac-12 could look to poach a few Big XII schools, but not the ones usually suggested here. He says the best prizes are Kansas, Baylor, TCU and Houston. I am not endorsing this, just passing it along. I think it will be a cold day in the Sahara before the presidents of Stanford and Cal vote to add Baylor, even assuming the Baylor would accept.
LikeLike
I’ll be interested to see if they can make the finances work.
Would basically require the Big 12 media rights to basically get heavily underbid from expectations that have floated around (from Navigate and Big 12 media/supporters generally).
Right now the Big 12 exit fee is 2 years of revenue which under the old contract is $80 million or so.
That’s a tough circle to square if the Pac-12 wants to add any of them while keeping their own schools and additions financially whole.
It makes sense for long-run stability for them to try to raid the Big 12 of their Texas markets, but pulling it off is the part that is difficult to see unless the Big 12 media rights fall significantly in value.
As far as the ACC goes, they have to try to figure out if some addition or partnership with Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-4 more works financially.
The question is whether ESPN feels the need to give anything more than a pro-rata increase to their contracts. Most discussed options like putting Pac-12 schools on ACCN don’t grow slices of the pie much since any revenue there would go to just making the Pac-12 schools whole.
Hard to see why ESPN
LikeLike
*Hard to see a scenario where ESPN significantly lifts the value of the ACC contract without Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Twitterverse has claims from names I don’t recognize that the Big XII adding Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah “as early as today” and Cal and Stanford headed to ACC as a material change to permit ACC to renegotiate with ESPN.
I put no stock in any of that simply because that’s a fairly elegant solution in realignment terms.
LikeLike
Hard to believe Washington and Oregon are left by the side of the road.
LikeLike
Big 12 fans have definitely learned from their West Virginia conference mates.
LikeLike
I suspected that a PAC/Big 12 merger or partnership wasn’t going to work. There are too much cultural differences between the two conferences. My guess on the PAC’s list of options:
1. Partner with ACC (nope)
2. Partner with Big 12 (nope)
3. Big Raid of ACC. Similar to how the Big 8 became the Big 12. Invite enough ACC teams that ACC dissolves ending with an effectively new conference with 20-22 schools for 2025. The ACC teams will do it because it allows them to hit the open market 12 years early. The Coastal is the 3rd best conference. Risks angering ESPN, who love that ACC deal.
4. Raid Big 12, Take Houston and TCU. Maybe KU and ISU.
5. Raid MW. Hello SDSU
LikeLike
I suspected that a PAC/Big 12 merger or partnership wasn’t going to work. There are too much cultural differences between the two conferences.
Although the cultural differences are real, the various articles said it came down to money. As it usually does.
LikeLike
Right. There wasn’t enough money for them to ignore the cultural and academic issues.
LikeLike
Except, if the reports are correct, it was the Big XII rejecting the Pac-12, not the other way around. Academically, every Big XII school would be delighted to be associated with the Pac-12. But the athletics revenue has to be there.
LikeLike
Why do people assume the PAC 10 will poach the Big 12? The Big 12 seems to be in a stronger position, and it seems able to poach the easternmost PAC 10 teams.
If the Big 12 does poach the PAC 10, where does the PAC go? There are no suitable replacements for Colorado or Utah or the Arizona schools. The PAC likely either dissolves or become the sixth member of the G5.
And no one is poaching any ACC school before 2036. Even ND is frozen in place.
LikeLike
Both sides should (possibly would) try to poach the other of its best schools but it’s not clear whether the $ works.
Pac-12 has the 2 “tentpoles” in Oregon/Washington and more markets controlled out of the 22 schools involved, so you’d assume that’s the conference that would poach the other.
But it’s not clear which conference will get a better TV deal and it’s also not clear whether there’s enough of a difference between the two contracts to justify teams changing leagues.
All we can bet is that all 3 conferences (ACC, Pac-12, Big 12) are studying every possible expansion/partnership/whatever scenario to try to find something that benefits them.
LikeLike
Why do people assume the PAC 10 will poach the Big 12? The Big 12 seems to be in a stronger position, and it seems able to poach the easternmost PAC 10 teams.
If you were president of one of the four corners schools, who would you rather be associated with: Stanford, Cal, UW and UO or Baylor, TCU, ISU and KU? The PAC schools are all USN top 100 (except UO at 103, OSU and WSU). The only two Big 12 top 100 are TCU and Baylor. Unless the difference in media money so substantial it overrides all academic concerns, I don’t see any university president making that decision.
I will give the Big 12 credit, it has done a better job of managing the narrative to make it sound like the Big 12 is a better place than the PAC
LikeLike
I agree.
As or more importantly, I believe they all recruit CA more heavily than they recruit TX.
LikeLike
Seriously if you are president at Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Baylor, or Texas Tech do you want to be hitched to WVU, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU or the PAC-10 schools?
Assuming the money is roughly the same which fits your self-image of your university and your idea of who your peer institutions are.
LikeLike
If they are going to a cocktail party or an academic gathering, they want to be with Stanford, Cal, Washington, and Oregon. But the Big XII is an athletics conference, not a social event or a scholarly seminar. The Big XII has a very hefty exit fee, so the Pac-12 needs to pay a lot more, or they will lose money.
LikeLike
Big 12 exit fee is 2 years of revenue.
Unless the gap in $ justifies leaving, nobody will.
Also why ACC may be most secure of the other 3 conferences, their exit fee is 3 years of revenue.
Going to be hard to get shifts out of ACC or Big 12 unless the money makes sense.
Going to the Big Ten or SEC makes sense, other shifts have to be calculated to the $.
LikeLike
I don’t see ESPN doing much here, unless the ACC agrees to an extension.
LikeLike
https://saturdayoutwest.com/pac-12/report-oregon-washington-could-see-unequal-revenue-splits-if-they-remain-with-the-pac-12/
Pete Thamel is suggesting that unequal revenue sharing is coming to all the P5 conferences in the near future. It’s his opinion, he’s not claiming sources are saying that.
“I think we will see more unequal revenue sharing soon, I think that’s going to inevitably happen in the ACC.” Thamel said Tuesday morning during an appearance on SEC This Morning. “If Oregon and Washington are staying in the Pac-12, there’s going to be some unequal (revenue sharing) and I do think it eventually comes to the SEC and it eventually comes to the Big Ten because you can’t win the national titles like it’s Clemson (sharing) football money with Duke football. They’re not carrying the weight.”
“North Carolina basketball gets all the units from making the national title game. Should they be sharing those with Pitt basketball, which stinks right now? There is a sense of, ‘What is fairness?’ Because I think the money was so big for so long that everybody linked arms and said, ‘We’re good.’ But eventually, that’s going to change.”
I could see splitting postseason money unequally, and that shouldn’t cause too many complaints as long as everyone is still getting a decent share of it. Splitting the regular season revenue unequally is a tougher sell, but if it’s only a portion of the money involved it might be fine. The P10 did that for a long time and it was fine. The current equal shares are partially why USC left.
LikeLike
“Pete Thamel is suggesting that unequal revenue sharing is coming to all the P5 conferences in the near future.”
I call complete Bull Droppings on this. Big Ten and SEC will never go that route. But probably would have saved the Pac-12 if they had done it.
LikeLike
If it ever happens, it would be the final step before a superleague for NFL Lite that takes the top brands from each conference and leaves the rest behind. I’d say it’s at least a decade away, and probably longer. But at some point when TV says there are no new revenue streams to further increase the payouts, the SEC may tire of supporting the Vandy and UK (and …) football teams and prefer to let AL and UGA and others earn more. If they do, the B10 may feel obligated to follow suit.
LikeLike
UK actually carries their weight when you add their basketball and football (which actually isn’t that bad) together.
The SEC schools that should be worried (besides Vandy) are the MS schools.
LikeLike
By Vandy and the Mississippi schools, you mean the last three CWS champions?
Regarding football, Vandy will never pull their weight in the SEC, but everybody loves a Nashville road trip.
Miss State was ranked #1 in the very first CFP Ranking and has participated in a NY-6 bowl, which is as many as Texas has played.
Ole Miss has played in 3 NY-6 bowl games. In fact, Ole Miss has participated in as many NY-6 bowls as Oregon, Washington, Michigan St, Michigan, Wisconsin & Penn St; and more than USC.
Both Mississippi schools play in routinely packed 60k stadiums, which is better just about anyone in the ACC/B12/P10 along with the bottom half of the B1G.
LikeLike
Yeah, true, I just don’t see the SEC or B10 switching from equal revenue sharing any time soon (possibly ever). I was more reacting to Brian’s poor use of UK as an example of an SEC school that doesn’t pull its own weight.
LikeLike
Brian – I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks about ways to incentivize and reward winning. With all the new money coming in to all the conferences over the next few years, this is the perfect time to do it. My thoughts are to split 90% of all TV revenue proportionately to all members and set aside 10% for conference champs. Two percent goes to the football champ and one percent to the runner-up, one percent to the basketball champ, with the other seven percent split up amongst all the other conference sports. Its not a lot, but its something. I do like the idea of the schools keeping more bowl money. There’s a big difference between the NY-6 bowls and the Gasparilla bowl.
LikeLike
As long as the total pie is constantly increasing, there is not much incentive to open this can of worms. The argument would surely be divisive and contentious. If you are the SEC, why would you mess with that, when you are already a winner with the existing system?
Wherever it has been tried, unequal revenue sharing has always been a prelude to acrimony. Yeah, Alabama could make more, but at what long-term cost?
LikeLike
Marc,
The P10 operated that way for a long time. They only shifted to equal splits with the move to 12 teams and the new TV deal (though USC and UCLA were promised a minimum payout to get them to agree). Once USC started making a lot less than they would’ve under the old model, and the B10 and SEC separated financially, that’s when USC’s talk of leaving the P12 really began.
Likewise, the B12 was unequal and then tried equal before starting to fall apart. Unequal shares draw acrimony because schools don’t like others to make more. But if other conferences are making tons more already, there is already acrimony with your top brands feeling underpaid.
LikeLike
In both conferences, unequal revenue was the outward symptom of the disease. Do you think there is any workable revenue model where Texas and Oklahoma stay in the Big XII? I doubt it.
LikeLike
Marc,
UT would still be there if the SEC (and thus TAMU) wasn’t making so much more. Was there a revenue model to make that happen? Sure. If LHN was wildly successful, and UT was winning in football and making CFP runs and getting unequal revenue, and AL wasn’t so dominant, and ….
But the unequal revenue didn’t drive the split. Going to equal splits actually sped up the break up. The same in the P12. The big brands were happier, but may have left eventually because the market is so skewed towards the P2.
LikeLike
Alan,
There are lots of ways to do it. Split X% of the CFP money equally, with the other (100-X)% being given to those who earned it (and/or with bowl money). Do a similar thing with the NCAA tournament money. They could also have a small pool of championship bonuses for non-revenue sports.
They can also do a split based on TV appearances (ABC = $X, ESPN = $Y, SECN = $Z). The B12 and P12 both did it before.
LikeLike
“They can also do a split based on TV appearances (ABC = $X, ESPN = $Y, SECN = $Z). The B12 and P12 both did it before.”
And how did things work out for the B12 and P12?
LikeLike
Fine. Then they switched to equal splits, and lost their top brands.
LikeLike
If you are Ole Miss or Vanderbilt and SEC pays you what you are worth there is not a lot of reason to be cannon fodder much of the time.
If the money is the same for you in Big XII or AAC why bother, when you can win more and have a happier fan base?
Being serious now, if you have the spigot to real money cut off what is your incentive to vote to regulate intercollegiate athletics the way a small handful of super wealthy programs want to?
The NFL is the beast of pro sports because there’s very little revenue difference between teams. Gate and luxury box revenue is the primary difference and even gate is partially shared. That’s been a disincentive to building 100k stadiums.
In most conferences I suspect eat what you kill benefits 25% and is a wash or a loss for the rest. Hard to get support for that.
LikeLike
I think it depends in part on how large you let the gaps be, and what factors you consider (football, hoops, baseball?, large markets?, academics?, other?). USC brought the largest market and the best football brand to the P12, and was a strong academic school and good at non-revenue sports. UT did similar things for the B12. Success in the SEC is normally a little more dispersed.
If AL gets $85M and AR gets $75M, AR is still a lot better off in the SEC than the B12. If it’s $110M/50M, that’s a lot harder to accept.
LikeLike
https://voiceofmotown.com/west-virginias-ultimate-insider-opens-up-the-mhver3-interview/
Since he’s been mentioned here, I thought I’d note that @MHver3 did an interview. The interview is focused on WV and the B12, but below are some big picture questions.
He also tweeted that the B12 will get $50-55M in their new TV deal.
Q: Is there a chance that the Big 10 and SEC break off from the NCAA?
A: Not as long as the rest of the Power 5 (4,3 whatever) can remain relevant with good tv money, good ratings, etc. the Big 2 will not risk alienating over half the viewing audience by using the nuclear option.
Q: What is the biggest threat to college football? NIL, conference realignment, major sports networks, or the transfer portal?
A: The biggest threat for the past 20 years has been networks. It’s ruined rivalries and broken programs. The biggest threat of the future is NIL. It’s going to widen the gap of the haves and have nots. It’s going to turn off many of the fans that are still hanging around that enjoy the amateurism of the sport. If a players union is formed then it gets even murkier. It really is Pandora’s box.
Q: How long could these mega conferences exist? Would teams like Oklahoma, USC, etc., be okay with being the 4th or 5th best team in a mega conference with more money long-term?
A: Eventually the hope of many ADs is that the major programs (top 60-70) break away from the NCAA and form their own governing body complete with a commissioner, and negotiate all their media as one entity. This would allow for regional divisions and a return to classic rivalries and affiliations. We are still 10-20 years away from that.
Q: Do you expect Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah to ultimately join the Big 12? If so, will the Big 12 be strong enough at that point to remain relevant in today’s college football landscape?
A: That’s a loaded question. The way things are currently leaning I would say AZ and Colorado are as close to a lock as it can be without a formal offer being made to them yet. The other two…well that’s up to what the committee decides is best for the conference. We can add AZ and CU and get a bump in the revenue. If we add all 4 we may actually take a small hit in the per school payout. If we add all 4 plus Oregon and Washington we get a net increase per school but not much more than just adding AZ and CU alone. It gets tricky when you have so many mouths to feed. Any combination of additions will only make the B12 stronger and that’s good for WVU and good for college football.
LikeLike
@MHver3 used a series of tweets to “explain” why the B12 would make so much more than expected.
I think Jon Wilner gave a good statement on this:
LikeLike
I have not followed @MHver3 in years, but as I recall he was almost never right about anything. Of course, even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day. Maybe now will be that time.
LikeLike
Even he admits, he is just passing on everything he is told. He knows his sources sometimes use him to spread misinformation.
LikeLike
If none of the teams in the ACC have an out for at least 10 more years (approaching 2036) why would the teams that would lose money agree to do this now?
A few basketball teams, UVA, UNC, Duke, ?, would regularly get more basketball money, but might lose as much in football, particularly if football revenue is based on TV appearances. Even if NCAA revenues helped the five or six schools, why would the others agree to that at this time?
Which football school, other than Clemson, would give up basketball money to keep more football money? Maybe FSU, but even FSU has being doing better in the NCAA tournament than in football for the past few years, so it would be close. (FSU does have the UF football game every year to draw TV eyeballs).
If football revenues include TV appearances, who gets to play ND more often?
Does a split based on tournament appearances officially make the ACC a basketball conference that has football? Or does football appearance revenue to teams surpass NCAA tournament revenue.
LikeLike
As others have noted, it’s unlikely to be sufficient to make schools stay where they feel underpaid. The only reason for doing it would be to delay other schools from leaving the ACC. It might buy a few more years in a top level conference. But if they start it at the last minute, it might be too little, too late. They key would be to find the right time to start it to minimize their losses.
LikeLike
Football revenue drives the bus, even in the basketball-rich ACC. Like you, I see no reason for the losing teams to agree to take less money for the next 10 years, only to very likely lose members anyway when the GOR expires.
LikeLike
Concurring, mostly, with z33k comments above.
We should look at precedent. When the Big XII lost NE/CO/A&M/MO, ESPN allegedly could have devalued their contract. Instead Big XII was allowed to keep what they have, a vital lifeline to sustaining that conference and enabling it to entice new members. ESPN didn’t need to do that – but they did.
Similarly, and unquestionably, ESPN has significant interests vested in the ACC for at least the next 14 years. While no business just willingly throws cash at its partners, they do agree from time to time to adjust terms to ensure their business partners remain on board. ESPN gains nothing with unhappy customers and conference defections (to the B1G), except lost subscribers and lost future business opportunities.
Enter the PAC and its need for a better carriage deal. The 30-day negotiation window for the current tv contract ends August 4. There’s enough viewership and revenue there for the PAC & ESPN to make more money than the poor-performing PAC-12 Network. And the ACC does not need (though it would like) B1G-like money – it just needs to not fall too far behind. Adding PAC content allows ACC to re-open what everyone has acknowledged is an under-valued deal with ESPN. Even a 10% bump in the per-school distribution would bring the ACC within shouting range.
Maybe I’m wrong and it goes nowhere. But IMHO an ACC/PAC deal makes too much sense not to do it for each of the ACC, PAC, and ESPN.
LikeLike
IMHO an ACC/PAC deal makes too much sense not to do it for each of the ACC, PAC, and ESPN.
In what way does it make sense? The ACC already plays a robust non-conference schedule. They don’t have much, or any, room to add more. Replacing their current n-c opponents with Pac-12 opponents does not make their schedule any better.
Now, maybe ESPN will voluntarily pay the ACC more because it wants the league to survive, that seems to me totally separate from any deal they make with the Pac-12. They might very well offer to take over the Pac-12 Networks, because they offered that before, and Larry Scott turned them down.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree OOC games probably make no more money. But combining the ACCN and P12N should lead to more revenue for ESPN. The P12’s tier 3 content has actual value but hasn’t been monetized well at all. Spread over 2 conferences that isn’t a huge boost per school, but it’s certainly worth something.
Maybe there’s money to be made by moving the ACC to 9 games, or improving the P12’s worst OOC games.
LikeLike
You missed the point; I was not entirely clear (my bad).
The deal to be made relates to content. One of the comments waaay above is that ESPN (and the PAC in this instance) will benefit from an already built platform, the ACC Network which already has an existing base of subscribers. Otherwise the PAC & ESPN would have to build one from scratch & negotiate with service providers like Comcast, all of which will cost time and money.
By expanding that platform to include West Coast carriage, new content would be added – and there is plenty of room to add more content (and subscribers from a 2nd rapidly expanding population area). The ACC and ESPN are co-owners of the ACC Network. Under the terms of their contract, adding new content with new viewerships enables the ACC and ESPN to revisit their financial contract.
WRT scheduling, you’re not wrong that all ACC teams already have other P5 opponents scheduled. Some of these would have to be bought out or perhaps be cancelled by mutual agreement (given all the realignments). The ACC/PAC/ESPN would likely try to generate more viewers & revenue than what is currently in place. I could see the ACC & PAC having 8 conference games each, then 10 crossover games each year, plus the new Rose Bowl-ish game that might generate additional $.
But the real money to be had is by maximizing the carriage of the ACC Network (likely rebranded) across the entirety of two coastlines.
LikeLike
(My comments in response to Marc, with whom I usually agree. Re-uploading nearly 2,000 comments on FTT’s site causing my iPhone to go a little slow LOL)
LikeLike
There’s different frameworks of a partnership/realignment.
One of the ones we theorized around here last year a lot was the Big Ten adding 6-7 Pac-12 schools centered around USC/UCLA to create a 3rd division out West.
That division would play 5-6 games against each other and then 3-4 “national” crossover games with the other 2 divisions.
Then do a conference championship tournament of 4 teams with 3 division winners and a 4th team. Can do it in the 9th week of conference games if don’t want to add a 10th conference game (i.e. 1v4 and 2v3 and match up the rest of the teams in the 9th week of conference play as a flex week).
What if the ACC does something like that?
What if the ACC adds Washington/Oregon/Arizona/Arizona State/Utah/Colorado/Cal/Stanford and they play 7 games against each other and then 1 extra week of “crossover games” against the other 2 divisions.
Then the final week of play would be a 1v4, 2v3, and so on down the ranks.
Of course, there’s a question of how/if the money would work or whether ESPN would open the ACC deal to a more full renegotiation or just offer a pro-rata increase to their current deal.
The ACCN would probably generate significant extra revenue off the Western states becoming in-footprint states but obviously there’s a question as to whether that’s just enough money to pay those Western teams or if there’s more to make the current 14 ACC teams better off.
That’s really the only ACC-Pac-12 marriage that makes sense to me financially if it’s including a lot of the teams and trying to minimize travel.
But realistically, their best bet is to just try to add like 4-6 teams and get the most $ per team they can wring out of ESPN if possible.
Without USC/UCLA involved though, it’s just hard to pull off an 8 team addition or bigger partnership.
Washington/Oregon are bringing most of the “extra value” without the LA schools and you don’t want to dilute that.
LikeLike
Since the P12 TV deal is up soon and the ACC TV deal (and GOR) runs another 14 years wouldn’t it be better for many of the teams in these 2 leagues to dissolve both conferences and merge the top 8 teams from each to create a new 16 team league? Would that new league on the open market generate more revenue per school than any of the other alternatives currently being discussed? It’s possible that WA, OR, FSU, Clemson, etc. may have more value to that league than to the B1G or SEC. Play 7 division games and 2 cross-over games with the COG in Vegas. Offer ND the same deal they have in the ACC now with 2 or 3 games in each division. It would mean going nuclear and shedding the low TV value schools. If the eventual reality is the death of one of the current P5 conferences, why not merge the best of these two now?
LikeLike
If you dissolve the ACC and the best schools are free to go wherever they want without penalty, some of them would probably get Big Ten or SEC invitations.
We don’t know what the Big Ten and SEC would do if they had the unconstrained ability to graze at the buffet, but it is pretty unlikely that all 16 schools would still be available when the dust settles.
LikeLike
Bob,
1. It’s not clear that dissolving the ACC would eliminate the GOR.
2. Yes, consolidating the best remaining brands would make more money than any of the ACC, B12, or P12 now.
3. Those brands would all have more value in the B10 or SEC than they do elsewhere (more games against top brands). But it may not be enough value to get them invited. Their lesser value in a lesser conference would be more than enough to be added, though.
LikeLike
As Marc said, hard to see how shredding the ACC GOR helps the schools that could be left behind.
Schools like BC or Pitt or Syracuse or WF would never want to go along with that because UNC/UVA/FSU/Clemson/Miami would try to bolt to the Big Ten/SEC.
LikeLike
This new article suggests Notre Dame may successfully cut a deal with NBC to stay independent. But even if they do the Big Ten may still expand with some or all of Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and Cal.
LikeLike
There is no new reporting in that article — it’s just citing other reporting that was already out there.
LikeLike
The new reporting I’m seeing there is that supposedly the Big Ten would expand anyway even if they don’t get Notre Dame. Although maybe it’s not reporting, maybe it’s just speculation. I don’t know.
LikeLike
It’s just hard to see stability for the Pac-12 without some kind of arrangement that takes care of the “corner 4”. Washington/Oregon will be fine no matter what happens; they can sit in a “new Pac-10 or Pac-11/12 with SDSU/UNLV/whoever” and wait for the Big Ten to come calling, but that doesn’t buy long-term stability for Colorado/Arizona/Arizona State/Utah.
There’s 3 options here:
1) Pac-12 raids the Big 12: Financially it’s hard to make this work; Big 12 requires 2 years of conference distributions to be forfeit (~$80 million under the current contract). Pac-12 could aim for 2 or 3 of the Texas schools (Texas Tech/Houston and maybe TCU) along with Oklahoma State and/or Kansas to gut the Big 12. That would recreate a “poor man’s” version of Larry Scott’s Pac-16 and that’d buy long-term stability for the “corner 4” if Washington/Oregon ever leave. They’d still be at 12-14 schools even if 2 or 3 other schools check out…
But obviously, the big question is always “where’s the money”, can you make 4-5 Big 12 schools whole while they’re putting back $80 million exit fee each? Can you increase the pot for the remaining 10 schools?
2) Conversely, Big 12 could raid the Pac-12. For a variety of reasons it’s hard to see how or why the Pac-12 schools would jump unless the numbers being put out by Navigate are somehow real and that NBC/ESPN/FOX/whoever is willing to put together $40-50 million per school for the Big 12 schools.
3) ACC raids the Pac-12 or partners with them in some fashion. Only one that really makes sense to me is a raid for 4-8 of the Pac-12 teams with Washington/Oregon and maybe a few others being the sensible option. Create a West Coast division of those teams that play round robin and then play a few crossover games with the Eastern teams. Add a 9th conference game in the final week that’s a flex game: 1v4, 2v3 and the rest lined up and then the winners of those 2 semifinal games play in the conference championship.
Financially, that’s probably the only way to increase value, but it’s hard to know whether an 18-22 team ACC with those schools significantly improves ESPN’s offer to the ACC or whether ESPN would try to give just a bit more than a pro-rata increase.
#3 makes the most sense for ACC/Pac-12 because it provides long-term stability. There’s strength in numbers for the “corner 4” and the less desirable ACC schools.
By being in an 18-22 team configuration, they can withstand further losses in the mid-2030s. Washington/Oregon would be lined up with Clemson/FSU with 2036 GOR exits, so they’d also be able to leave at the same time, which may be why they’d agree to that.
It’s probably the best outcome for all those schools involved though the conference could fall down to around 16 schools eventually, but even that’s probably still good for ND as well which would continue to have a home for its “quasi-independence” deal even if schools like UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU, Miami or whoever bolt.
LikeLike
z33k,
I fail to see why the 4 corner schools in particular need taking care of. UW and UO have nowhere to go, and neither do the NorCal schools (barring being a +1 for ND). Moving to the B12 doesn’t help with any of the non-financial concerns of the 4 corners schools, and then the B12 just becomes unstable instead.
Stability will happen once the B10 signs its new deals and ND gets a huge deal from NBC to stay independent. Then all the P12 schools will know none of them have anywhere to go, and the ACC will know they’re stuck until 2036. Everyone can sign TV deals that end in the early- to mid-2030s and we can go through all of this again around 2033.
LikeLike
You’re probably right, I just think there’s going to be a serious push on the ACC side to bulk up again the same way they took Louisville (in a panic, likely over the academic concerns of a bunch of schools in the ACC).
I find it difficult to believe that the schools in the ACC (especially the ones more at risk like BC/Syracuse/WF/Pitt; not just the football schools like FSU/Clemson) wouldn’t push hard for the ACC to bulk up further.
There’s strength in numbers in adding if the financial picture is at least similar or increasing which it would with Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-6 more.
Would Washington/Oregon go for it? I have no earthly clue, but if they decide to do it, I can see ESPN at least keeping everybody whole in an ACC-18/20/22 and the ACCN likely would increase its to even the current 14 ACC schools to some extent.
LikeLike
z33k,
I don’t think they could get the votes to add a bunch of schools that don’t raise the payout. Why would the upper and middle tier ACC schools approve that? If ESPN comes back and says everyone will get a significant bump for adding them, that’s different. But once you split it over 18-22 schools, it’s really hard to make a big jump. Why dilute rivalries and travel across the country in a bunch of sports if all the extra money is spent in the travel?
The true value is in eliminating the least valuable schools, and that’s not an option right now.
LikeLike
Why do you discount the possibility of a PAC raid of the ACC? Invite enough to dissolve the ACC and take the whole thing to market. I would guess that would make the most money for all and have a decent shot at keeping Notre Dame partially in.
LikeLike
Because that wouldn’t work; that would get intercepted by the SEC/Big Ten and so it’s impossible.
Big Ten/SEC would immediately dive into a mess like that and try to start grabbing schools if the ACC dissolves.
That’s the reason why 10+ of the ACC schools would never vote for that; it’s way too risky.
The GoR is protection for everyone not named UNC, FSU and maybe a few others that are wanted.
Raids involving the ACC will only go outward right now.
LikeLike
Because that wouldn’t work; that would get intercepted by the SEC/Big Ten and so it’s impossible.
Big Ten/SEC would immediately dive into a mess like that and try to start grabbing schools if the ACC dissolves.
You may lose Notre Dame, but offering same deal they had with the ACC in new Costal Conference would be pretty enticing for ND. Otherwise, is there a USC/UCLA or UT/OU level add in the ACC? We assume UNC for various reasons none of which are people care about UNC football. UNC/Duke is doubling down on football apathy in NC.UVA/NC might be, but can UVA leave VT and UNC leave Duke/NCST? I could see Miami/FSU for the Big Ten, but will the Big Ten even consider FSU? Would the SEC triple down in Florida?
That’s the reason why 10+ of the ACC schools would never vote for that; it’s way too risky.
I can see that, but there is also risk in staying (i.e. Kentucky doubling up on UL). The ACC could raid the PAC but they will have to accept whatever below market offer ESPN gives them. Once the PAC can bring NBC/CBS/Amazon/Apple to the table with ESPN and FOX, the PAC will probably be able to offer a distribution much higher than the current below market ACC deal. Will that require there be an ACC cast off or two? Probably.
LikeLike
I’m with you on all of this.
I think the ACC schools that are at risk of falling behind should be pushing hard for an addition of a West wing including Oregon/Washington, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah (some mix of 4-8 of those) to cement an 18-22 team ACC as the clear #3 to the Big Ten/SEC regardless of whether 4-8 of those schools eventually bolt.
If you’re BC, Louisville, WF, Syracuse, Pitt, you should be pushing hard for the addition of Pac-12 schools to cement the ACC as a clear #3.
They’ll still be left with some of Miami, Oregon, Va Tech, etc. possibly and so there’ll still be quality left in that conference, enough to keep them as #3 even if they lose anchors like FSU and UNC.
LikeLike
The PAC (max value of $300M) cannot offer a better deal than what the ACC offers its conference members now. And not enough of the ACC schools have bona fide landing spots to reach the majority vote needed to dissolve the ACC (and all of its associated contracts).
LikeLike
Your max value of $300 million ($30 million per school) is currently double what the ACC is getting now ($17 million per). IMO – There is value in FSU/Miami/UL/VT vs ASU/UW/OU/UU that would push things higher.
LikeLike
The ACC just got $758M. The CC Network is outperforming the PAC-12 Network
LikeLike
Apologies, I fat-fingered typos in the last one. ACC just paid out $578M with the average per-school payout at $36M.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
Yes, but that’s the total distribution. That includes CFP money, bowl money, and NCAA tournament money.
The $300M number is just for P12 TV rights.
https://www.on3.com/news/conference-tv-deals-current-status-college-football/
The ACC’s TV deal pays about 17M per school per year on average.
LikeLike
The 2021 payout to the ACC from the ACC Network was $397,411,225, and the ACC’s total revenue was $578M. Not sure where you gents are getting $17M/school from. (And note, that total does not reflect a full year of Comcast subscribers.)
In contrast, the PAC-12 generated $344M on total revenue, including its tv payouts. Granted that was down b/c of COVID issues, I do not think anyone out there has been of the view that the PAC-12 Network was outperforming the ACC Network.
And all that data is before USC/USCLA’s departure. I don’t think anyone out there somehow thinks the new PAC is more valuable than the ACC (let alone double) to the extent that they can offer a better deal to ACC schools (referencing Mike’s original post).
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/news/acc-2020-fiscal-year-revenue/td6Dd0uaaOJ0/
Notre Dame, which was a full member of the ACC in football in 2020 and shared its home game rights on NBC with the rest of the conference, was paid an equal share of $34,889,808 from the conference.
…
The ACC had distributed $497.2 million during the 2019-20 reporting period, compared to $578,309,444 in 2020-21.
…
The ACC was boosted by the second year of the ACC Network, the ESPN channel that launched in 2019 and was closer to full distribution in 2020-21 than it had been during its debut year. The conference reported $397,411,225 in television revenue for this fiscal year, up 20 percent from last year.
The $17M was the average for just the ESPN deal without ACCN. I linked an article about in an earlier comment. But of the $578M in 2021, only $523M was distributed based on ND’s equal share value. But also, “only” $397M was from TV. Split 15 ways, that would be $26.5M per school.
The experts have said the P12 media rights are worth roughly $300M, or $30M per school. As you noted, the P12N has been useless so far. But now, the P12 can monetize those games so they have a lot of untapped value that could come out this deal.
The ACC’s deal is undervalued, but worse they are stuck with it for 14 more years. The P12 should come closer to their true market value. That’s how they could pay about the same, or even more, than the ACC.
My guess is that the ACC, B12, and P12 all end up at fairly similar payouts with the CFP money becoming a bigger share of it.
LikeLike
Mike,
The ACC GOR prevents any raid on them. For now. I’ve seen lawyers argue that even dissolving the ACC wouldn’t end the GOR, it’d just change the logistics.
The P12 has no exit fee, so they are the easiest schools to move. That’s one reason most plans have P12 schools leaving rather than the P12 poaching.
And if you dissolve the ACC, where do Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVA and VT end up? If many/most go to the B10 or SEC (or B12), then the new ACC would’ve lost a lot of value even if it did raid the P12.
LikeLike
The ACC GOR prevents any raid on them. For now. I’ve seen lawyers argue that even dissolving the ACC wouldn’t end the GOR, it’d just change the logistics.
IANAL – but my guess is that would depend on the language in ESPN contract since the GOR grants the rights to the ACC to fulfill the obligations in the ESPN agreement.
The P12 has no exit fee, so they are the easiest schools to move. That’s one reason most plans have P12 schools leaving rather than the P12 poaching.
I just don’t see the PAC taking their rights to the open market and then ESPN making it worthwhile for the ACC to actually raid the PAC 12. Using HooBurns’s claimed max value of $30 million per PAC school above, ESPN would have to nearly double the ACC’s deal (currently $17 million per) just to make it so any leaving PAC school won’t “lose” money on the move. Frankly, the money would have to be substantially more to make it worthwhile for UW/UO to leave the state schools. I don’t think anyone is expecting ESPN to substantially up the ACC deal.
Paying the ACC $238 million and the PAC $300 million is much cheaper than paying the ACC + 8 PAC (assuming OrSU and WSU are not invited) $30 million each or $660 million.
And if you dissolve the ACC, where do Clemson, FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVA and VT end up? If many/most go to the B10 or SEC (or B12), then the new ACC would’ve lost a lot of value even if it did raid the P12.
In my comment to zeek above, my thoughts are that most of the ACC ends up in the new Costal Conference. I am not convinced the Big Ten or SEC will do much raiding.
LikeLike
“History is replete with turning points. You must have faith that the universe will unfold as it should” – Mr. Spock, Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan
The report that ND’s asking price is $75M is the real news story of the week. NBC’s response will be a singular turning point for college football. The next chapter of conference expansion – likely for the next decade – is all predicated on what NBC decides.
Remember what Jack Swarbrick said: “The three things that would make continuing as an independent unsustainable would be the loss of a committed broadcast partner, ….”
That $75M? That’s more than anyone makes now. It makes sense that the top brand name in college football would ask for the top dollar amount. But it’s far and away more than the paltry $15M/year NBC has been paying ND (talk about bad TV deals – wow…) That amount bites into NBC’s profit margin.
Which leads to NBC’s understandable desire (or condition?) for “shoulder programming.” If paying that kind of money, NBC will want to go all in on college football programming with conference games before/after ND games on Saturdays. But who’s available for that? All the other conferences (including 99% of ND’s opponents) are or will be locked in with FOX or ESPN, not NBC. And no one sees the Big XII getting a better deal there, nor that “shoulder programming” will be loaded with future ND opponents.
NBC has exited other sports negotiations in the past, and they could certainly bail on ND’s asking price for Championship Soccer or some other programming that poses better profit margins. This turning point, NBC’s decision… could trigger a decision by ND to join a conference.
LikeLike
That $75M? That’s more than anyone makes now.
It’s in the ZIP code of what the Big Ten and the SEC expect to make (per school) in their new deals. The thing is, NBC is a dark football network most of the time. They have no postseason. They only have a game when the Irish are at home. The weeks the Irish travel (or are idle), they have nothing. This means they get none of the lead-ins or cross-product marketing that the other big networks have.
In the Big Ten or any conference, some team (or teams) will usually be in the playoff race, even if it’s not the expected ones. Once Notre Dame absorbs its first loss of the season, it is most likely eliminated from the playoff, and NBC has no other postseason angle to cover — as it would if it had a conference rather than just one team.
Even the third-choice Big Ten game usually means something. But if the Irish are 4–2 on October 22, their home date against UNLV is assuredly meaningless. Obviously there are ND fans who would watch no matter what, but NBC can’t afford to pay $10 million a game without attracting more than just the core faithful.
So these are the problems NBC must weigh.
All the other conferences (including 99% of ND’s opponents) are or will be locked in with FOX or ESPN, not NBC.
The Big XII, Pac-12, and Big Ten all have new deals coming up that NBC could bid on.
LikeLike
The $75M is well north of what anyone makes now, and the assumption is that it represents the starting point for ND. No one in his/her right mind will take a contract that freezes the annual payout for the life of the contract in the current environment. The point being is that the price tag is a really big number for NBC, and it forces them to make a really significant business & financial decision, unlike past deals with ND.
Further, ND’s deal is being negotiated now, not after whatever the Big XII, PAC-12, and B1G negotiate. NBC has not been a player with any of these conferences previously, and those too will have exorbitant price tags (just like ND) – likely to be much higher than what NBC envisions as “shoulder programming”. Not being argumentative – we’ll see soon if NBC has come to play. If not, then Conference Realignment (and blogs across America) will get really interesting LOL
LikeLike
HooBurns,
I doubt it’s the starting point of the deal. It’s the starting point of negotiations from ND, and probably would be fine as an average over a medium length deal. The $100M numbers being thrown around for the B10 and SEC are averages over their next deals, because that’s always how the media covers new deals. Only later do the details come out.
The B10 started talking with NBC well before ND did, since the B10’s deal ends a year earlier. The P12’s exclusive window ends in early August. The B12 can’t talk with NBC until 2024. ND came out with this number because of the B10’s progress in their negotiations. Once they see what the B10 actually gets, then they can talk more seriously with NBC. But since their deal runs until 2025, they don’t have to rush negotiations.
I doubt the B12’s price will be exorbitant. The most optimistic estimates are $600M+ per year for all their rights. NBC isn’t looking for all their rights, so it’s be significantly cheaper. The B10 package would be expensive, but it would also pull higher ratings. And NBC are the ones who said they want P5 games as “shoulder programming,” and they know what those rights have been going for lately.
They could decide ND just isn’t worth the cost. The risk to that is CBS jumping on it as much cheaper than their old SEC package, but still solid ratings. I could see CBS also adding a B10 package to that to maintain a CFB presence every weekend.
LikeLike
You kinda got to where I am – NBC could decide ND isn’t worth it, which would change things. But you’re right that someone else could certainly step in to keep ND away from a conference. We shall see.
Great discussion and info, thx
LikeLike
HooBurns,
$75M is a lot for 7 home games, but it’s not crazy. ND has been making an average of $15M over their current deal (supposedly about $22M as it nears the end) which is terribly undervalued (like the SEC’s CBS deal was). Nobody is making $75M yet, but ND’s new deal wouldn’t start until 2025.
People are anticipating the B10 and SEC both being near $100M for their next deals. That is for all rights. ND still would get their share of the ACC deal (1/5 share of ESPN deal, full share of ACCN), which is another $11M or so, on top of their NBC deal. That would say that for all of their rights, ND gets $86M which is close enough to B10 and SEC numbers that ND is fine staying independent.
Does $75M make sense for NBC? Well, they did say they’d need shoulder programming in the form of P5 games. That’s their way of telling ND that the price of getting $75M is them losing exclusivity on NBC. If they get B10 or B12 (or even P12) games to bundle with ND games, that should give a real boost to them. It justifies adding pre-game and post-game shows that discuss all of CFB. It boosts viewership because people are lazy and will stay on the same channel if something decent is on next. It gives them more opportunities to advertise upcoming games to more CFB fans. And it is in the realm of what other kings get paid.
Part of the answer depends on how much they pay the B10 or B12 for games. And whether they can get any other concessions from ND and that other league (and their TV partners). Would ND promise to play 2 games per year against the B10 (1 for the B12)? Would that other league allow NBC to always pick the ND game even if Fox or ESPN should’ve gotten it by priority? Would they get to put the weakest ND home game on Peacock every year at their discretion? Can they keep co-streaming all home ND games?
I could see this deal making sense for NBC.
LikeLike
Not disagreeing and definitely not saying $75M is crazy. The point being is these negotiations will place NBC in a different orbit, one in which it hasn’t flown previously and for which it may not have planned. Didn’t NBC decide NFL Sunday was too expensive & bail, only to later carve out the Sunday Night Football niche?
In the end, the assumption here is that NBC will pay that hefty price. But then again…
LikeLike
The networks shift approaches regularly. One executive declares something too expensive to chase, the next sees it as vital to the network’s future. CBS had the prime SEC package, then chose to let it go. But now CBS is chasing a B10 package instead.
NBC has dabbled in CFB for a long time with ND plus a few HBCU games. Now they are considering the B10, B12, and maybe P12. NBC dropped the NHL and shut down their sports channels, but they also paid a lot to keep EPL rights. It’s not clear to me where they are headed with sports at the moment. Perhaps they see CFB as a better companion to their other rights packages.
LikeLike
NBC’s sports strategy to me seems to be pay for large numbers of eyeballs to get buzz and promote other content and then fill in bargain hunting.
Before Big XII raided I was told NBC had considered AAC with schedule arranged to put the biggest games on Notre Dame road weeks but only wanted those games and one AAC game per week on NBCSN. The AAC lost interest when ESPN tossed in guaranteed ABC appearances if AAC sold the whole basket across all sports.
It’s not implausible that in the changed environment that NBC would go after one or both of PAC-10 and Big XII to get games to fill in for Notre Dame, maybe create an every week slot on USA and a late game slot on USA and put some on Peacock.
Streaming is going to have losers. Right now the biggest stream exclusive will be Thursday Night Football. After that it is a few baseball games and a lot of NHL and the occasional G5 game of some prominence. If NBC can land say Oklahoma State at Iowa State or Oregon at Stanford Peacock becomes a sports player
LikeLike
Didn’t NBC decide NFL Sunday was too expensive & bail, only to later carve out the Sunday Night Football niche?
Yes, after Fox bid the NFC away from CBS, CBS bid the AFC away from NBC. The Peacock said they believed CBS were over-paying. I have no idea if they would agree with that today. These were decisions made in the 1990s by different people than are in charge now.
After several years with no NFL coverage, NBC bid on and won the Sunday night package. This package had a flex scheduling element for the first time, meaning the games were not decided until later in the season.
This flex scheduling element is what NBC does not have with Notre Dame currently. The other big networks covering CFB can move kickoff times and choose from among a slate of games, with the conference networks hoovering up many of the worst ones. NBC can only show Notre Dame games.
LikeLike
NBC is always fascinating to watch. They will outbid the field for major events or what they believe can be water cooler conversation events with marketing.
NBC will embrace bargains (see XFL, the NHL for a time). They also are quick to pull the plug on things that don’t have great ROI for the dollars required.
My guess is that if NBC pays that or in that ballpark they will get their pound of flesh from Notre Dame, likely in the form of more Peacock appearances and more night games.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34273134/get-florida-coach-agree-moving-georgia-florida-game-campus
Kirby Smart feels the neutral site UGA/UF games hurts UGA in recruiting. He says the problem is that he can’t get a UF coach to agree to move it to campus. Doesn’t he just need his AD to agree? UGA has to sign a contract with Jacksonville (they own the stadium) every few years to play the game there. Just stop saying yes, and by default it will come back to campus.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34273066/acc-commissioner-jim-phillips-explore-all-options-reducing-revenue-gap-opposes-college-athletics-becoming-2-3-gated-communities
ACC commish Jim Phillips said the ACC is considering all its options to make more revenue.
Phillips said Wednesday the league continues to analyze pathways forward — from expansion, partnerships with the Pac-12, or shifting to an imbalanced revenue distribution model that could provide more money to schools more invested in football.
“Everything is on the table,” Phillips said. “We’re looking at our TV contract. We’re in engagement almost daily with our partners at ESPN. We’ve come together to have some discussions about what would be the next iteration for the ACC. It doesn’t mean we’re not going to make a move, but all options are on the table.”
Phillips said he’s open to discussing changing the league’s revenue distribution model — an option several football powers have urged for the past few years — but said it’s “not our first option.”
…
Several ACC teams have had their legal counsel evaluate the ACC’s grant of rights, according to multiple league administrators, but none have suggested they’re likely to challenge the document in court.
“Follow the logic,” Phillips said. “I would think that the significance of what that would mean, the television rights that the conference owns as well as a nine-figure financial penalty, I think it holds. But your guess is as good as mine.”
Interesting that he openly says they are considering unequal revenue. They may do it even if it doesn’t help much just because the football schools requested it. That would show they’re listening, at least.
LikeLike
Why should the B1G, or its TV partners, make concessions to ND or NBC?
Is this supposed to include some secret hand shake from ND that it will ignore obligations to the ACC and join B1G ASAP?
LikeLike
That’s true. And the very last thing B1G is going to agree to do is provide NBC the Shoulder Programming it needs to keep ND independent.
LikeLike
The B10 has been actively talking with NBC about a package of rights for weeks. They didn’t forget that NBC also airs ND. From the B10 POV, ND games are the shoulder programming.
No matter how much fans want it to be true, no conference tries to stick it to ND. They try to make their conferences appealing to ND, but that’s it. The B10 knows it has no control over whether or not ND stays independent. That’s entirely up to ND and NBC (or other networks). The B10 wants to make sure that if ND ever does fully join a conference, it will be the B10.
The B10 isn’t going to refuse to work with NBC because ND might stay independent. They’ll do it because the ACC’s GOR ends in 2036 and ND will have to decide what they want to do then.
It’s not like anything I proposed would be a sacrifice on the B10’s part. It would basically be NBC paying the B10 instead of Fox (or CBS or whomever) to let them pick ND games.
LikeLike
No matter how much fans want it to be true, no conference tries to stick it to ND.
Indeed, it is quite the opposite. Conferences fall over themselves to be on friendly terms with ND.
From the B10 POV, ND games are the shoulder programming.
The leaked comment was clearly from someone who saw ND as the main event, and any other games as secondary. I wonder what was their motivation for putting it that way—assuming they were quoted accurately. We can be quite sure that the B10 would not want to be perceived as shoulder programming for anybody else.
LikeLike
If NBC wins some B10 games, they will almost certainly be paying more per game for each B10 game shown on NBC than for each ND game shown on NBC.
And the scuttlebutt was that NBC was looking at showing B10 games in primetime (so ND games would be the lead-in).
LikeLike
Marc: “We can be quite sure that the B10 would not want to be perceived as shoulder programming for anybody else.”
Exactly. Why would the Big Ten want to be another enabler for ND independence, as the ACC grovels to do? I doubt that they will join a conference soon and if they ever do, it will be the Big Ten. We all know this.
If ND wants shoulder programming, let ’em show the Big XII. Then NBC can learn first-hand how much K State-Iowa State or Cincy-UCF enhances the viewing experience of ND home football.
LikeLike
Colin,
Why? For the money. The B10 isn’t turning down more money because fans don’t want ND to also get paid.
As for ND independence, that’s fine for the B10. The B10 has prospered for over a decade with ND as an independent. What the B10 wants to prevent is ND fully joining any other conference. ND joining the B10 is a bonus.
You seem to have misunderstood what was said. NBC wants shoulder programming, not ND. It’s a way to make more profit from the rights they own. ND couldn’t care less about shoulder programming, they just want their check from NBC. ABC/ESPN is full of shoulder programming that helps the SEC and ACC. Should the B10 avoid them, too, because of that?
LikeLike
“ND couldn’t care less about shoulder programming, they just want their check from NBC.”
Brian, that is no longer true. ND has been happy with $15 million/yr for a long time but now $15 million is chicken feed and ND wants $75 million. They aren’t going to get there without quality shoulder programming and the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 can’t provide it.
LikeLike
How does that make anything I said untrue? ND wants their $75M check. They don’t care what NBC has to do to make it work financially (think Goodfellas – “Business is bad? F*** you, pay me.”). ND will accept that NBC is adding shoulder programming, and that’s the limit of their thinking about it.
It’s up to NBC to decide who can provide what they need. The B12 has been mentioned as a possibility. The ACC isn’t available. The P12’s right are about to become an option. Obviously the B10 is a more expensive and more valuable option.
LikeLike
NBC may also be a B10 media rights holder. If NBC pays for a perq, the B10 (and other networks) would consider it.
What concessions would the B10 be making to ND? They already play USC annually, and about 13 other B10 schools would love to play them. ND has played at least 2 B10 schools (counting USC) almost every year. Getting 2 games from ND is hardly a concession.
There’s no need for ND to break any commitments. They play 5 ACC teams every year plus USC every year already. This would just be one of their other 6 games to schedule (and they have another B10 team on the schedule essentially every year anyway). And in 2036, they can continue to stay independent if they wish. I was just throwing out ideas that NBC might want that seem reasonable.
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-20/newsom-demands-ucla-explain-pac-12-exit
Gavin Newsom continued his temper tantrum with a public statement. He also attended a closed-door UC board of regents meeting.
Governor Gavin Newsom demanded Wednesday that UCLA explain how the Pac-12 exit for the Big Ten will benefit all student athletes and its relationship with UC Berkeley — the only UC campus to be left behind and likely a major financial blow in a conference weakened by the defection of big names.
“The first duty of any public university is to the people — especially students,” Newsom said in a statement. “UCLA needs to clearly explain to the public how this deal will improve the experience for all his student-athletes, will honor his centuries-old partnership with UC Berkeley and preserve the history, rivalries and traditions that enrich our communities.”
…
Newsom understands the benefits to UCLA and her right to pursue the deal, but is concerned about her acting as a public university with an obligation to be transparent and accountable, according to Ben Chida, the governor’s chief adviser on education.
“It’s about more than sports and more than money,” Chida said, describing Newsom’s views. “It’s about public confidence. It’s about the mental health of student-athletes. And it’s about honoring the partnerships, histories and traditions that have lasted a century.”
UC President Michael V. Drake was aware of UCLA’s talks with Big Ten officials. But the regents were not consulted at the time, and only a “handful” were notified just before the decision was announced and told to keep it confidential, said Rich Leib, chairman of the board of regents. UCLA made the decision “under a broad delegated authority that did not necessarily anticipate this type of action,” Leib said.
While all discussions must necessarily be closely monitored given the sensitivity of the negotiations, Newsom would have liked to see a process that included a meeting with regents, possibly in closed session, where UCLA could have outlined the proposed deal, explaining the direct benefit to student- athletes, and asked for ideas on how to limit damage to UC Berkeley and other conference members, Chida said.
Ideas floated included that UCLA should pay UC Berkeley a Pac-12 “exit fee” or share the TV revenues with the sister campus — terms the regents could potentially impose.
I would point out that all other UC campuses are being left behind, not just Cal. And that UCLA refusing wouldn’t have significantly improved Cal’s position, since USC leaving is the bigger blow to the P12’s TV deal. And it isn’t UCLA’s job to make decisions based on improving their relationship with Cal. They can play games OOC, and all the research ties are still there.
And perhaps Newsom noticed that UCLA’s AD is over $100M in debt and was considering dropping up to 10 sports. This move certainly helps all those athletes, plus the extra money can improve facilities, hire more staff, pay for better modes of transit, and reduce the debt (freeing up the debt service money for other uses).
If Newsom really was worried about Cal, the state would pay off all the debt for earthquake-proofing the stadium. Let Cal focus on just supporting its teams instead. I hope the regents are wise enough not to punish UCLA much (if at all).
LikeLike
Newsom is posturing and hoping that most of his “audience” has no understanding of the issues. He is actually saying that a major move between sports conferences should discussed openly before it happens. I wonder what the chances of that would be.
UCLA did tell UCal what was happening and one notices that Cal certainly did not do anything to interfere.
Brian is correct, let the State of California take care of the debts of Cal for its stadium and make up the UCLA $100 million shortfall. As I recall, Cal wanted to move its stadium but was not allowed to do so and that is why the stadium had to be earthquake proof and was so expensive.
LikeLike
An analysis of TV ratings for regular season games of future ACC/B12/P12 members against each other (no future B10/SEC/ND to inflate ratings, no G5/independents to hurt them). Also broken down by network and time. Time period was 2012-2021.
LikeLike
The data itself, with a little more analysis by someone else, is available in the tweet below. The second person ranked them by Z-score (it corrects for which network the games were on – so basically, how well you did compared to other games on the same network). Like all such analysis, it has its flaws.
1. FSU
2. UO
3. UL
4. UW
5. Clemson
6. Miami
7. VT
8. WSU
9. OkSU
10. UU
ACC – 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23, 28, 29, 33
B12 – 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 32, 34, 35, 36
P12 – 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, 17, 21, 26, 30, 31
Notes:
30. CU
31. UAZ – so maybe taking the 4 corners schools isn’t a great idea
33. UNC – and yet everyone wants them
LikeLike
Interesting data at least and does sort of measure how good a team’s been and how well its matchups have drawn over the past decade.
UNC being that low is maybe a bit of a surprise, but I wonder on the sample sizes; they haven’t played that many games on broadcast TV from a cursory glance at their recent football seasons: lots of games on ESPN/2/3/U, ACCRSN->ACCN, and they used to play a lot of those regional split ABC/ESPN2 style games.
So some of those numbers may be from samples of <10 games.
LikeLike
Yes, most of his analysis suffers from small sample sizes because he breaks it down so many ways. Many of his bins only had 1 or 2 games in them.
But his results do align somewhat with previous multi-year analyses that don’t count games against the future B10/SEC/ND, like Andy Staples’ work I linked above.
LikeLike
Yeah even with the small sample sizes, the numbers generally line up pretty well with how football tv/brand values should look; UNC is probably the only major anomaly where I’d just toss their position out in valuing the school.
That top 10-15 looks pretty much exactly how a football tv value lineup would look.
You’ve got FSU, Clemson, Oregon, Washington in the top 5 followed by Miami and Virginia Tech. UVA at 11. Oklahoma State at 9 as the highest Big 12 team makes sense from what we know of the Big 12’s tv ratings and how consistently good they’ve been throughout this period.
Louisville probably sticks out at the top as being overrated/overvalued but that makes sense given the start of this time period featured their move to the ACC when their program was winning 8+ games every year, so they were regularly ranked and would’ve done well on national tv.
So yeah, Louisville and UNC are really the only 2 that I’d basically “toss out” in terms of how school values would line up from a TV perspective.
Louisville is probably a cautionary tale on taking a school because they’re just doing well in football over a very short period of time, but I don’t think that’s going to be an issue for the Big Ten or SEC which aren’t looking at schools like that, and they’re really the only anomaly at the top of the list.
As for UNC, they’re still #2 on any expansion list for the Big Ten behind ND regardless of their football tv presence over that period.
LikeLike
UNC is probably the only major anomaly where I’d just toss their position out in valuing the school.
Their position could very well be correct. They are within a few positions of Kansas, Arizona, and Duke — all basketball schools without a lot of football success.
You mentioned that they seldom get the prime network TV slots, but that is not coincidental. ESPN knows what people want to watch, and they use their selection windows wisely.
LikeLike
@Marc
I agree with that to an extent, but not sure how to weigh these things given the majority of the data there are from time periods where the ACC had the dual window contracts for a lot of its ABC games (and that’s where most of UNC’s national games have been in years where they were good the past decade).
Problem is just that a lot of the data is thrown out for a school like that (all their ND games, ABC/ESPN2 games, etc.).
Just hard to gauge off that knowing that most of their ABC games aren’t measured here since FSU, Clemson, Miami, Va Tech were hogging most of the sole national window ABC games.
As far as comparisons go, I’m not sure you can compare them to Kansas, Arizona, and Duke as just a basketball school.
Football wise they’ve gone to bowl games most years in the past 40 years.
UNC has 36 bowl appearances, NC State has 32, UVa has 21, Arizona has 21, Duke has 14, Kansas has 12.
UNC is as much of a football school as NC State; they’ve just had a lot more success in basketball and Michael Jordan went there so it’s synonymous with basketball.
I’d argue they’re arguably the 2nd strongest football brand in NC/VA behind just Va Tech, or at worst tied for 2nd with NC State.
LikeLike
The above-cited College Football News Pre-COVID five year attendance numbers come to a different conclusion. UNC was #41 in attendance at 48,817 (96.67% of capacity), and NC State was #29 in attendance at 56,931 (98.84% of capacity).
UNC & NC State are 25 miles apart. From these numbers, NC State appears to be the football school of choice for those in the area.
NC State’s undergrad enrollment is 26K and UNC’s is 19K.
While UNC’s basketball program is a member of the much smaller basketball Kings club, and the MJ connection is a huge marketing plus, I would argue that NC State is the more popular football school in the state – and its not that close.
LikeLike
z33k,
I think UL and UNC may be artifacts of the Z-score analysis approach. It looks at how you did compared to others in that same window. UNC had some success under Mack Brown and got some better TV windows than normal, but lost many of those games. Doing poorly in a better slot hurts them overall. If they’d gotten half of that same rating in a lesser TV window, they’d probably score better.
UL is likely the opposite of that. They did well comparatively in some bad TV windows.
LikeLike
How much of that difference is due to UNC shrinking their stadium to 50.5k Alan?
Back in 2014 for example before UNC shrank their stadium, their attendance was identical: UNC had 54,667 average, NC State had 54,398 average.
UNC put in seats and dropped from 60+k down to 50.5k.
I really don’t see the difference between the two in football brands. Head to head is about even over the last 30-40 years though UNC has a giant lead in the head-to-head series.
Bowl games wise, UNC at 36, NC State at 32.
Both have had very similar seasons, similar ranked finishes when they have them over the last 20-30 years.
It’s just hard to see separation there. Yes, NC State is the larger school sure, but I’m not sure that there’s a big separation between the schools.
It’s not like NC State had a Beamer like run that put Va Tech clearly ahead of UVa.
LikeLike
Not really. Most of it doesn’t pass the smell test. UVA #11? Duke and Wake Forest ahead of UNC? Washington St. #3 and Oregon St. #5 in the Pac? He just cut out too much data to make it meaningful. Another guy did a similar 10 year analysis on a close time frame and UVA, Duke and Wake Forest were, quite logically, near the bottom of the ACC schools. UNC was in the middle.
LikeLike
bullet,
There is no right way to deal with mirror games. The approach chosen will change the results. None of these analyses consider team rankings, which clearly change fan interest. They also don’t consider other games on at the same time.
The other guy (OrangeDude) included CCGs which skew the numbers, and all games against future B10/SEC/ND teams. This guy and Andy Staples dropped those games because they were trying to estimate how these teams would do in the new versions of their conferences, and how good they might look as realignment options.
Dropping the future B10/SEC/ND team games helps the ACC, because they keep games against Clemson, FSU and Miami while the B12 teams lose games against UT and OU, and the P12 lose games against USC and UCLA. But the ACC do lose their ND games and SEC rivalries, which hurts.
OrangeDude fully counted ABC/ESPN2 mirror games for all 4 teams, while this guy dropped them. But OrangeDude dropped all ESPNU games, while this guy didn’t. And this guy broke things down by network and time window, while OrangeDude didn’t.
Different analyses can serve different purposes. I’m not saying one approach is right and the other isn’t. But you should expect different results, with neither being “correct.”
It’s also important to remember that the rankings were done by the second guy on twitter, not the one who made the video. The second guy chose to do a Z-score analysis and rank by the results. I think the Z-score test is what led to the rankings you don’t like. Doing comparatively well in a known bad TV window is a good thing in that analysis, unlike just averaging total viewers. You can argue which approach is better (bad teams get bad windows, or if this team got better windows it would do even better). Look at the video for the “raw” data, and you might agree more.
Because there are so many variables, I like Andy Staples’ simple approach. How many of your games got 1M viewers? I think he should have converted his numbers into a % of games played, but the basic concept worked for me.
LikeLike
UNC being that low is maybe a bit of a surprise, but I wonder on the sample sizes; they haven’t played that many games on broadcast TV from a cursory glance at their recent football seasons
I noted this above, but UNC’s t-shirt basketball fans do not care about UNC football at all.
Last year’s Notre Dame – UNC primetime on NBC only pulled in 2.34 million viewers and finished third in its time slot (PSU-OSU on ABC 7.05 million/Miss-Aub on ESPN 2.52 million). That’s a below average 2021 (2.5 million) Notre Dame game. Their next game was on ABC against undefeated Wake and (barely) finished second in its timeslot pulling in 2.2 million viewers (OSU-Neb on FOX 5.32 million/Miz-UGA on ESPN 2.18 million). That’s cherry picking two games that I would have expected to have much higher ratings.
FWIW, 2020 wasn’t much better for their OTA games outside of their Notre Dame game getting 6.08 million, with Miami 3.33, FSU 2.2, BC 1.98, and VT 1.6.
LikeLike
I sort of feel like the NC schools have been “super regionalized” by playing in games that nobody outside the state could possibly care about…
It’s like a quasi-SWC problem for them having UNC and NC State in the same conference as Duke and WF.
That’s a lot of games that don’t resonate anywhere outside of Tobacco Road.
Take UNC or NC State out of that and put them in different conferences and it’d be interesting to see how they do.
LikeLike
@zeek – I’ll take that a step further.
Every fall in NC there are six teams playing major college football, the Panthers, the NHL Hurricanes, and the Hornets. That is a lot of competition. If you could take UNC in a vacuum its probably very profitable. I am not sure you can. Especially when there are five fan bases in NC conditioned to hate you.
LikeLike
@Mike
You make a good point about that; 6 schools (including ECU which has a strong base for itself and App St) that play at this level and each have bases of support.
UNC and NC State probably command the largest 2 slices of that market for football, but it’s hard to see how much strength they command in different parts of the state.
UNC basketball is probably more unifying across the state, but football wise that’s a lot of division.
As far as brand plays outside the state, it’s hard to say on that too since neither UNC or NC State ever had a big run.
It’s sort of just another big flagship like Illinois or Minnesota. It’s there but unless they have a top 25 team it’s probably not going to resonate anywhere.
LikeLike
I’m a Penn State alum that has lived 20+ years between the UNC and NC State campuses. Without a doubt NC State is the more popular football school locally regardless of how the 2 teams are performing. They generate more local TV football coverage, alumni engagement, water cooler talk, tailgating enthusiasm, and football-related T-shirt fans. No doubt UNC has some local support, but far more casual UNC fans that are quick to leave the game early to go to the Franklin Street bars and wait for basketball season to start. UNC may hold more value to the B1G and/or SEC for a variety of reasons, but football brand is not one of them.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say everybody really wants UNC, Brian, at least if you’re are talking purely about athletics value. Just one poster here who really overrated UNC (if you don’t consider the academic aspects) and a bunch of rumors.
LikeLike
Well, you’d be wrong yet again. Sources/reporting say UNC is high on the list for both the B10 and SEC. That’s the best information we can have about who’s a target, beyond ND who we know the B10 has asked multiple times. This hasn’t just been one twitter rumor from a person nobody has heard of before.
I don’t recall anyone saying UNC was wanted solely for athletic value, just that they were wanted.
LikeLike
How are those not rumors?
Was anyone with a name quoted?
LikeLike
Because multiple legitimate reporters (trained to check multiple sources and verify info so they don’t embarrass their employer) said it, not random one internet dude with no accountability. It doesn’t make them correct, but they have some credibility.
LikeLike
C’mon Richard.
UNC is the only school other than Notre Dame that we can say with some reasonable level of certainty is guaranteed of getting an invite from the Big Ten and SEC if they decide to exit the ACC.
Can’t say that about anybody else.
We can speculate of course that the Big Ten and SEC would like to pair them with UVA, but that’s not as certain; there’s other possibilities for the SEC in particular.
We can speculate as to whether FSU or Clemson or Miami would be invited to the SEC, can speculate on Duke or Ga Tech to the Big Ten. Can add Va Tech and NC State to the speculation as well.
But UNC is the one school in the ACC that should have no worries about finding a landing spot.
There’ve been a lot of sources over the years including UNC’s former chancellors who’ve said they’ve had friendly discussions with other conferences about UNC potentially joining.
LikeLike
Sure, in the past, before the LA schools joined the B10 and the B10 and SEC per capita payouts reached the stratosphere.
Now, only ND is a sure bet as a school that would be wanted by the B10/SEC.
If UO and (especially UW) and the Bay Area schools may not be wanted by the B10/SEC, not to mention Clemson and FSU with their far greater football draws, UNC definitely isn’t a sure thing in this new world either.
LikeLike
Tony Siracusa (was at ACC media day asking questions of Phillips) says he believes 2 schools or more in the ACC would demand the GoR be shortened or allow for an out if the ACC tries to expand with Pac-12 schools or partner with the Pac-12.
Needless to say, I’m skeptical of that kind of reporting…
No idea how legitimate his ACC sources are (he’s a UCLA guy originally) but he appears on a lot of CFB podcasts/media.
Of course with ACC expansion early on in the 2000s, there was a lot of division with respect to which schools to choose and whether to expand so maybe it’s not a big deal if they have some internal 11-3 or 12-2 votes to force expansion forward (before they announce “unanimous” approval), but it’s would be notable if there’s that kind of division in the background with schools actively wanting to bolt and not make changes.
LikeLike
z33k,
I could see a case for that with the less valuable ACC schools, if ESPN promised a few million more per year. An extra $5M per year for 12 years probably more than makes up for not getting the $40M or whatever in years 13 and 14. That would leave the schools whole financially, and let the more valuable ones leave earlier. And if ESPN can make the same profit on the new deal, everyone’s happy.
The bigger brands may not see much value in a small increase that they then mostly have to spend on travel anyway. Getting out 2 years earlier has a lot of value to them (more than $100M potentially).
Did ESPN lowball the P12 so they could make this offer to bring the P12 brands to the ACC for a raise? They knew Fox wasn’t interested in the P12 rights. Would another network offer the P12 more to stay together? Maybe Apple will overpay for all their rights so they can stream all the games?
LikeLike
Yeah that last part especially, ESPN basically has free rein to try to bring the most valuable Pac-12 properties to the ACC if they want to given their complete control on the ACC and the lack of other bidders for the Pac-12.
It’s partially why I think there’s a very strong chance that we see some sort of realignment of teams from the Pac-12 to the ACC.
LikeLike
We’ll have to see. Nobody else can talk to the P12 until early August. Maybe NBC or CBS will show interest. I’m a little surprised that Fox is showing zero interest. They need something to show besides the B10, and the B12 games are also losing value. If nothing else, they could force ESPN to pay a little more.
LikeLike
Well, Fox is all-in on their Big Noon strategy, and West Coast teams are obviously not terribly compatible with such a time slot.
Also, does Fox really need a lot more than half of the B10’s best games? For filling the Big Noon timeslot, actually, probably not.
LikeLike
ESPN actually likes the Pac-12 after-dark time slot. While very few people on the East Coast watch, a live game is still better-rated than anything else they could show. I don’t know what Fox does at that time.
LikeLike
https://lastwordonsports.com/collegefootball/2022/07/20/45298-the-acc-has-a-lot-of-questions/
It’s more than that, or perhaps you misheard/misread or it was misreported. They’d also want to change the GOR if ND joined fully (as if that’s a concern).
But adding Notre Dame would require a vote of the current ACC membership. While it would likely pass, Last Word has been advised by administrators at two schools, that the path is not that clean. Speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to address the issue publicly, the two administrators each said they had the same expectations. If the conference wants to add Notre Dame, the “yes” votes would be there but with conditions. Their schools would want to revisit the terms of the Grant of Rights.
…
Because the term of the Grant of Rights still has so many years, a buyout from any school could reach the $100 million level. Phillips said other schools that are leaving their conferences are staying long enough for their contract to expire instead of paying the buyout. He specifically brought up USC, UCLA, Oklahoma, and Texas.
But during the Q&A, Last Word reminded Phillips that those four schools only had two to three years left on the contracts. We asked if he was suggesting that ACC schools would also stay, even though the remaining term was 14 years. “Everything is on the table. We understand what that means. We understand what that revenue means moving forward, but I will also say, as I look at the next few years, I like where we’re going. But, again, the window is through ’36, so we’re going to have to address it, no question,” Phillips said. “Your point is a good one. Your point is a good one.”
LikeLike
Yeah I was listening to a TV shot so meaning may not have been the same; whatever he wrote is what he fully meant.
I’m not too surprised about including ND in that because it sounds as if Clemson/FSU (going to pinpoint those 2 as the likely instigators here) just want to bolt earlier than 2036 if they can and have already put out feelers to the SEC that they’d be available if they could get out of the GoR.
So they’d probably try to gum up the works on any form of expansion or get themselves a way out of the ACC earlier.
Of course, anything is a long shot in the short term given the SEC/Sankey is already on record that it’s up to the schools to extricate themselves from their conferences if they want to come to the SEC (and are wanted by the SEC).
LikeLike
One thing I want to note is that none of the potential B10 targets in the ACC that have been discussed (UNC, UVa, GTech, and Miami) are very big schools by B10 standards (and obviously neither is Duke). They all have about the same number of undergrads (UNC a little more, Miami a little less) as Ivy Cornell, which doesn’t and never did draw a lot to its football games. None of them (if you discount the massive number of folks who are enrolled in GTech’s online degrees) have more than 40K total students. In the B10, only UNL and Iowa (who obviously have a lot of T-shirt fans and, importantly, have no in-state top-level pro teams) and NU don’t have 40K total students (this includes the 2 new LA additions, BTW).
So for these schools to draw a lot of eyeballs, they need to draw a lot of t-shirt fans. Now, obviously, Miami football and UNC basketball have done so _when_they_are_winning_.
But T-shirt fans in states/metros with pro options are a lot more fickle when teams lose. The B10 gets so many eyeballs in part because so many B10 alumni bases are massive.
So I wouldn’t rate any of these schools to be far above another one and can see some logic to adding Miami and GTech (big metros with B10 alums).
Of course, if you support challenging the Ivy League in academics as well as the SEC in football (as I do), you’d support adding all of them + Duke (and the academically elite Pac schools and ND).
But then that isn’t a purely athletics/TV revenue argument any more.
LikeLike
One thing I want to note is that none of the potential B10 targets in the ACC that have been discussed (UNC, UVa, GTech, and Miami) are very big schools by B10 standards… I wouldn’t rate any of these schools to be far above another one and can see some logic to adding Miami and GTech (big metros with B10 alums).
Perhaps one differentiator is that Georgia Tech and Miami will very likely always be there. The SEC is highly unlikely to add either one. UGA already dominates the Georgia market, and if they want a second Florida school it is very likely FSU.
In contrast, if the Big Ten passes on UNC then they probably join the SEC and are gone forever. So it might make sense to get North Carolina (if they can), and wait a few years to digest them before adding more.
It is perhaps the same reasoning with the remaining Pacific schools (Stanford, Washington, etc.). I don’t know if the Big Ten will ever want them, but they certainly are not going anywhere else.
LikeLike
Here’s a rumor for you: CU, UU, UAZ, and ASU will apply to the B12 this afternoon. It mus be true, it’s on twitter.
LikeLike
Backtracking as quickly as he ran that out: “Still working to verify claims, however the possibility of 4 corner schools bluffing to make Oregon/Washington back off of a potential unequal revenue sharing model for new Pac 10 exists”
Source is probably something like “trust me bro”…
I still think we’re likely to see something happen at some point with the Pac-12 schools, but they have time to think of what they want to do.
Don’t see the rush at this point given the 2 year deadline has passed for a 2024 exit and they’re in media discussions right now.
These schools can take the next couple of months to figure out what they want to do in all likelihood.
LikeLike
4 corner schools bluffing to make Oregon/Washington back off of a potential unequal revenue sharing model for new Pac 10 exists
I don’ see a reason for the other 8 schools to agree to unequal revenue sharing. It won’t prevent OR/WA from bolting to the Big Ten if they’re invited.
LikeLike
I agree with that; hard to see how unequal revenue sharing fixes anything. That isn’t closing the gap that would keep UW/UO permanently by any stretch so it’s not even worth doing at this point.
And largely, the Pac-12 schools would be fine without Oregon/Washington (could go Big 12 or stay Pac-12 and add back and not lose too much in terms of $ compared to the loss of USC/UCLA).
LikeLike
I just liked that they stated a definitive action would happen and put a definitive time frame on it, so everyone can mock it in a few hours.
LikeLike
Your reaction is premature. It is still only 3:20 Pacific time. There is nearly two more hours to go.
LikeLike
It makes no sense to take an offer from another conference before you know what you are going to get in your current one. Therefore, I don’t see any movement until the PAC solicits bids from the open market. They likely already have initial bids from ESPN and FOX. I have a feeling NBC is interested. Amazon and Apple might be. I assume the top bidder(s?) will then be asked about what teams will be additive from the ACC, Big 12, AAC, and MW. I would guess mid to late August is the earliest before we know just how stable the PAC is going forward.
Meanwhile, expect to see a lot Big 12 raid rumors like this until then. The Big 12 has done a good job driving the narrative of the Big 12 being a predator.
LikeLike
If you don’t trust your conference mates you jump.
Remember Utah State was offered MWC membership believing rest of WAC would hold firm with BYU returning for Olympic sports.
Nevada and Fresno State jumped
Not trusting your conference partners is adequate reason to jump.
LikeLike
Trust them…to do what? The only issue is if they are going to a conference that pays a lot more, and there is no school in the Pac-12 that would say no to that.
LikeLike
Since Big XII and PAC-10 are thought to have similar per team value if you are Arizona State two things come into play.
1. A B1G follow up raid takes a high value property or properties. You end up making less than if you had joined Big XII.
2. B1G raids are done but someone else says yes to Big XII you are in a further diminished PAC and some number of Big XII life rafts are filled.
Not knowing upcoming PAC-10 value is irrelevant when you think there won’t be 10
LikeLike
Hard unless the money justifies it.
There’s always a question of how and where to jump and whether the $ makes sense.
If the $ is better somewhere else and there’s more stability, then jumping makes sense.
But if the $ is better with UW/UO, then it probably makes sense to ride that train as long as possible.
The corner 4 may not trust UW/UO long-term but it’s not clear there’s anywhere better for them right now.
They might push to all jump to the ACC together with UW/UO if the $ works, but hard to conceive of other possibilities.
LikeLike
If you don’t trust your conference mates you jump.
IMO – There is no downside to waiting.
1) You’d better know what you are jumping into and away from first.
2) The Big 12 is always going to take the four corners schools.
3) Even if the four corners schools don’t trust Stan/Cal/UO/UW there is nothing those schools can do to limit their options.
LikeLike
I know you know this, but no one actually applies until after a regents vote. Once the regents meet, everything is pretty much done. If that were the case, it wouldn’t just be “Sideline Sports” reporting it. The application part is a pretty big tell this isn’t true.
LikeLike
In an interview with the Arizona Republic, Arizona State AD Ray Anderson said of Big 12 defection rumors: “Everything out there has been overblown and exaggerated and lacking any credibility.” Says he had 1 conversation with 1 Big 12 AD.
From Stewart Mandel’s Twitter.
Hard to believe anything is imminent with Pac-12 schools, they got through next June to figure out what they want to do individually and collectively.
Big 12 sources have tried to push this “imminent raid of the Pac-12” narrative, but any further P5 realignment will take next 11 months to sort out. There’s no reason for any rush by anyone.
LikeLike
A different take on Pac after dark by Jon Wilner. His article is behind a pay wall, but here’s Awful Announcing’s take.
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/could-the-pac-12s-late-kickoffs-actually-be-a-boost-for-its-media-rights.html
“The beauty of the Pac-12 is you can program that late (Saturday) window for 13 consecutive weeks,’’ said John Kosner, a sports media consultant, president of Kosner Media and former executive vice president/digital media at ESPN.
“It takes a conference to do that, because it’s hard for individual schools to play more than a handful of those games each season.
“Let’s say you get practically a 1.0 rating and 1.5 million homes on average per (night) game. That’s considerable audience delivery for 3.5 hours every Saturday. That’s very hard to replace.
* * *
“And now, we’re back in the same position – the Pac-12’s media rights deals are coming to an end, it’s not in a great place, and those late night games might be what pushes the Pac-12 to a better media rights agreement. I understand the misgivings about playing so many games in that window, but when that’s such a significant selling point to networks, the conference might have to just take the hit.”
LikeLike
Their Catch-22 is that the exact thing that makes them attractive also kills their exposure in the Eastern/Central time zones.
Yes, USC and UCLA primarily left because of the financial differences between the Big Ten and Pac-12. But the exposure part of it; how do you replace that? Especially in a NIL world.
USC and UCLA will be playing in Eastern/Central time zones in much better tv slots with plenty of games against 6-8 teams that draw viewership everywhere in the East.
Unless they were in a big matchup with Oregon or Washington or a ranked Utah/Stanford, how were they going to replicate that.
Pick a random recent year for those teams and you find like 5-6 games at 10:30pm EST. That’s just not going to get much in the way of exposure in the East, and the conference suffered heavily for it.
Since the CFP started, Pac-12 has just struggled mightily to stay relevant and less exposure/relevance probably hurts their TV ratings and it’s just a downward spiral.
LikeLike
z33k,
I wonder if the networks will try some different windows. If NBC gets them, they could play at 6pm ET after a ND game or 4:30pm ET before a ND night game. That would be a lot better for eastern exposure, and ND would provide a lead in or follow up.
Streaming can also use offset windows. Start your game just as the 3:30 games go to halftime. Or during their second half, to pick up everyone bored with the blowouts on other channels. There’s a lull between the 3:30 games and 8pm games, so play more then.
LikeLike
Alan,
The odd thing to me is how much P12 fans hate those late games. I understand their concerns about lacking eastern viewers, but that’s not their biggest complaint. They hate having games start at night and run past midnight because it’s inconvenient. At least UA and ASU fans understand they have to play home games at night until mid-season due to the heat.
Many eastern fans love prime time games and wish for more night games (not me). I think it’s another example of the less fervent fandom out west. They don’t want to tailgate all day, then drive home after midnight.
If it’s just one network asking for this, it won’t be a big deal. That’s 1 night game per week. UA and ASU can cover most of the early weeks (2-3 each). Then everyone else just has 1 to host. The problem has been the P12N also wanting night games on top of ESPN wanting them and Fox too. But if they can get a bump for playing at night, they should make it their thing. Lean into it and publicize it, and maybe more fans will stay up to watch.
LikeLike
Brian – it just depends on your traditions. At LSU, we’ve been playing night home games almost exclusively since the 1930s. When LSU gets stuck with a once every few years 11am kick time, folks down hear go absolutely crazy. 2:30p isn’t much better.
In order to maximize revenue and fill ESPN time slots, I could see the Pac playing 10p Eastern kickoffs on Friday and Saturday on ESPN, having a 7p window of ABC/ESPN/2 (mostly ESPN/2 since the SEC will get the lion’s share of the ABC prime time slots), and two 3:30p windows on ESPN/2/U.
LikeLike
Night games were not a thing in most of the B10 until the past 30 years or so. OSU didn’t add permanent lights to the stadium until 2014. OSU played it’s 25th ever night home game last season, only 12 of which have been B10 games. 1:30 was the traditional kickoff, but only the old fans remember that.
But OSU fans clamor for more night games, because that’s now seen as when important games are played after years of ABC primetime games with their lead announcers. It will take them a while to adjust to Fox stressing the Big Noon game instead. Online I see other fan bases wanting night games, too. It’s only the P12 fans who really seem to push back.
LikeLike
??? Those After Dark games won’t end after midnight local (Pacific) time unless they run extra long.
To end after midnight Pacific time means ending 3AM Eastern time. Do any of those games start after 11PM Eastern? If not, to end after midnight local time means a game has to run 4+ hours.
BTW, I recall ESPN putting a bunch of Bama games in the 9:15PM Eastern timeslot, which ensures games ending after midnight local time, yet I don’t recall Tide fans complaining.
LikeLike
That was the complaint I read online, I think in one of Canzano’s articles (or maybe in the comments). Maybe they meant they get home after midnight, I don’t know. An 8pm kick can run past midnight with all the TV timeouts, especially in a pass-first conference like the P12. Their games average over 3:30 not long ago. But you wouldn’t expect a 7 or 7:30 PM kick to run that late.
Maybe it was a mountain time zone fan saying it. UA had 2 games start at 9pm local in 2015 – those would definitely go past midnight. ASU, CU and UU would also face that problem.
The last part is exactly my point – eastern fans like it, or at least don’t complain that much. The P12 fans just hate the late starts, and it’s not all about viewership. Stats do show those games tend to be very high scoring (1/3 had both teams score 30+ in 2016; earlier games it was only 1/6), so they probably tend to run even longer.
I do see how it could get tiring to always play at night. UA has averaged 8 night games per season over the past decade, though their local weather is to blame for at least half of those.
A more legitimate complaint is how many of those night games were on P12N, so even P12 fans may struggle to watch them.
LikeLike
A 10p eastern kick is a 7p kick on the west coast.
LikeLike
It is, but they often kicked at 10:30p ET. And as I said, UA had 2 games start at 9pm one year. That’s legitimately late. Remember, 4 of their remaining schools are on mountain time.
LikeLike
Arizona is functionally Pacific until November.
I love the late games. I drive two hours after home night games so something to listen to on the way home and watch as I wind down.
LikeLike
When it comes to work and business, the west coast has to cater to the eastern time zones. Therefore, as a general rule, people in the west tend to start work earlier than those in the midwest and further east, and thus get up earlier. Also, the people that still go to college football games out west tend to be older than average. And we all know that older people don’t like to drive at night and tend to go to bed earlier. I am still in my 50s, but I hate ESPN/Pac-12 “After Dark”, and have always refused to go to games that start later than 6pm. In my case, my work day used to begin at 7:15-7:30am, and on weekends I would get up early to swim.
LikeLike
Those numbers guarantee a floor in the Pac payout, but those aren’t terribly impressive viewership numbers. They certainly aren’t the type of numbers that make TV execs’ eyes bugle and want to pay out high 8-figure per game payouts.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3410274/2022/07/08/college-football-realignment-tv-viewers/
They aren’t great numbers, but they are good for that time slot.
When Andy Staples counted the number of games with 1M or more viewers, ignoring postseason games and games against ND, OU, UT, USC, UCLA, B10, or SEC teams, only 284 of 914 games (31%) met that number. So if the P12 could regularly pull 1M or more, that is doing well for them in any time slot. Sure 732/951 (77%) B10, SEC and ND games met that level, but the P12 isn’t expecting a payout on that same level. If they could get paid half of what the B10 makes, they’d be doing well.
• 117 games drew more than two million viewers.
• 47 games drew more than three million viewers.
• 27 games drew more than four million viewers.
• 14 games drew more than five million viewers.
• Of those, six were the Army-Navy game.
So 1M looks like a decent threshold for them. Their best brands (UW, UO) only hit 1M about 5 times per season. Accounting for USC/UCLA games and maybe a B10 OOC game, that’s roughly 50% of the time. The best brands, Clemson and FSU, hit 1M less than 6 times per season, so around 55-60% of the time.
I think the P12 could get a very good payday if they got 1.5M viewers regularly in late games.
LikeLike
LA LA laws from LA LA Land . . . . .
https://www.deseret.com/sports/2022/7/16/23203914/usc-ucla-and-californias-naughty-list-assembly-bill-1887-gavin-newsome-big-ten-pac-12-ncaa-college
LikeLike
It’s a bad law, but it’s so easy to work around for UCLA that it’s pointless.
If COVID-19 couldn’t stop sports entirely, then neither can Assembly Bill 1887. The University of California and California State University clarified their position on this issue when they told The Sacramento Bee last year that the schools’ sports teams can travel to states on the banned list, but only with money from donors and other nontaxpayer sources, such as tuition and university fees.
Isn’t all the P12 revenue share nontaxpayer as well? The accountants just have to make sure the travel expenses come from the right account, then can shuffle the other money around to keep the balances correct. The state partially funds the academic side of UCLA, and UCLA may subsidize their AD from the academic side a little. Those would be the only funds that couldn’t be spent on this travel.
LikeLike
The NCAA’s Division I Council is proposing to amend the transfer rule again, this time allowing multiple transfers without the requirement to sit out a year:
Sports Illustrated
Before 2021, any transferring athlete was required to sit out a year, which a lot of people thought was unfair since it didn’t apply to coaches too, and the purported reasons for it never made a lot of sense. (There was a provision for hardship exceptions, but these were infrequently granted.) The rule in place today allows a player to transfer once and play immediately, but any later transfer must follow the old rule.
The revision, if adopted, would eliminate the one-year sit-out rule for all transfers. A player could be on a different team every year, as long as they could find schools willing to take them.
LikeLike
Its going to be interesting to see how NIL contracts will be structured to try to thwart transferring. i.e. we’ll give you a boat load of money, but the contract is structured in a way that you get very little if you don’t abide by the terms of the contract which says you have to stay at school X for Y amount of years.
LikeLike
I’m sure many of the local NIL deals already stipulate that you must be on the roster at State U to keep getting paid. Any national deals shouldn’t care as much where you play, as long as it’s a big brand school.
LikeLike
The twist being School accepting a transfer is on the hook for the athletic scholarship through bachelors degree or end of eligibility. If transfer busts you can’t revoke aid.
LikeLike
Marc,
But going along with that change is a plan to have transfer windows for each sport. I believe its 60 days from when the NCAA championship in your sport picks the competitors for most sports. For fall sports it’s 2 windows, 45 days after the NCAA picks teams and then 15 more days in May. That’s a lot different from now, when a player can literally walk off the field in the middle of a game and be elsewhere the next week.
I don’t like the multiple transfers (for any college student – it greatly reduces the odds you graduate), but all other college students can do it so athletes should be able to as well. Having restricted windows makes a lot more sense than it being a free for all all year long.
They should make sure that with multiple transfers, sufficient academic progress is still being made before a player is eligible again. Right now players have to pass a certain number of credits each year to stay eligible. Credits are often lost during a transfer because the other school doesn’t have an equivalent course, so the player should have to still be above the threshold after the transfer in my opinion. That may already be part of the rule.
LikeLike
Frank’s 10+ posts in this thread here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-951339-page-7.html are informative and (IMO) blog worthy.
LikeLike
Well, if we’re playing the Frank’s comments at csnbbs.com card then I’d say his reading suggestion (“The Club”) is worth some discussion.
1. I haven’t read it, but I don’t think the parallels between the formation of the EPL and today in CFB are quite as strong as Frank makes them sound.
2. I think one could argue that the Superleague is more the direction CFB seems to be headed (true NFL lite, with 32-48 members in 2 leagues and nobody else in the postseason), and soccer fans were so outraged at the idea that they stopped it.
3. I think the existence of promotion and relegation is a fundamental piece to why the EPL worked, and I don’t believe it can be applied to CFB (universities need known cash flows to commit to facilities upgrades, etc.).
4. Soccer is one professional sport. Universities have up to 36 intercollegiate teams with over 1000 amateur athletes. They can’t just cut “salary” by dropping players like a soccer club can when it drops down. And when they move up, they can’t just go hire some free agents to become competitive instantly.
5. CFB teams are tied to universities (non-profits), many of which are state owned. Look at the fit Newsom is throwing now over Cal potentially being “relegated” to a second tier conference. Dropping from EPL to the Championship is like dropping from the B10 to the G5. Is any government-owned team going to approve a structure with that much financial risk?
LikeLike
EPL teams budget knowing relegation is possible. Relegated clubs get payment from new league and a partial from old to ease shift. Clubs can and do sell expensive contracts when relegated.
There is parallel in that there are college programs that predate the regulatory framework and anyone (accredited) can start a team.
There’s just guarantee of a path upward.
LikeLike
I thought that one was good too
LikeLike
FT2 TRIGGER ALERT! !! Transplanted LA golden boy Colin Cowherd claims Fox has floated a two team B1G retraction! Could be a desperate cry for attention, could be….😂🌋😫😭!
LikeLike
https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/2022/07/if-big-ten-didnt-just-add-lucrative-programs-like-usc-but-trimmed-stragglers-whod-get-the-boot-jones.html
Cowherd with a hot take even he doesn’t necessarily believe just to get a reaction? Never!
This article mentions it, and discusses the topic in general.
Look, I don’t necessarily believe he’s in cahoots with his FOX management on every strategic move it makes. But neither would I be surprised if he was clued in about the USC/UCLA>B1G bombshell hours or days in advance. He was a cheerleader for the concept straight out of the gate.
So, when he floated the concept of ill-fitting newbies Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland and maybe even longtime but underperforming member Purdue being carved out of the Big Ten in the future, I didn’t take it as coincidence. Could FOX chieftains have intimated the notion at some point and leaked it to Cowherd just as a way to normalize it, get it out there in the mainstream?
The problem with this theory is that RU and UMD make huge money for the B10 by adding markets and BTN subscriber fees. NE brought a rapidly fading brand, but they are still probably safe. That’s one of the strengths of the B10, every school brings value in its own way. Football: OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, WI, IA, NE, USC. Markets: RU, UMD, NW. Hoops and a state: IU, IL, UCLA The hardest one to classify is PU, but they are solid in hoops, help bring IN, have been decent in FB before, and are strong academically.
I suppose NW and PU would be the least valuable financially, in part because they share a state with another B10 school. As the financial model changes, RU could be in trouble if they don’t improve on the field. Maybe NE if they continue to lose for another decade or more. But I really don’t see this happening unless CFB completely switches to the NFL-lite model, in which case the concept of conferences wouldn’t really apply. It would be the top 32-48 brands, period.
LikeLike
Interesting thing about his football revenues. I am not sure about final 2021 numbers, but in 2020 the B1G share per school was around $45 million. RU got $11.4 million and UMd got $27.6. RU will be repaying about $10 million per year until 2027. The difference in sports income RU and UMd and the lower tier B1G schools was totally repayment of loans and completion of buy-in time.
As Brian stated above, these are not pro leagues. These schools literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars directly related to anticipated league income. The mere threat of relegation and a loss of tens of millions of dollars would end the relationship between the leagues and the teams relegated.
The mere threat would also end recruiting. How does RU, UMd, Purdue, whichever recruit a player and explain to him that in a couple of years he will no longer be in the B1G, some glorified G5 league? What good players would ever sign up for that? Fairly likely that once relegated there would never be a way back.
And of course, there would be no better way to have a whole bunch of members of Congress getting very interested in why State U has invested huge amount of money to be competitive in the B1G and now is going to play with the little kids instead.
As pointed out, look at the reaction of Gov Newsome over what is happening in CA. Without regard to its merits, that is probably the least that would happen with Congress.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Yes, using the revenues would be silly. Beyond the buy-ins and loans RU and UMD have, there are lots of other irrelevant factors that can change those numbers. Do you only consider FB revenue, or FB + MBB, or all sports? If the conference is splitting media revenue equally, then the differences can be things like donations, ticket sales, and merchandising. How do any of those indicate the value brought to the conference? Should NW be punished forever for being smaller and having a dispersed alumni base, and thus selling fewer tickets? Does a bad NE team selling a lot of tickets mean they’re adding a lot of value to the conference?
LikeLike
With the transfer portal relegation/promotion will not impact recruitment more than it is now when a prospect has an offer from a top performing school in their sport (OSU,MI) vs. one lower down (and this can vary by sport). The prospect needs to take the best they can get and if that does not pan out than transfer to the best opportunity that can get at that time.
If you look at the EPL, relegation works like a revolving door. It is rare that at least one of the 3 teams relegated in a year is not promoted back to the EPL the next year.
The relegation process gets lower tier games more interest at the end of the season. Image if the winner of the Indiana-Purdue game did not get an old wooden bucket but the right to stay in the B1G with the loser vanquished to the B12.
That would solve the 2 (or 3 with ND) schools in Indiana problem, but it brings up several others. The B1G presidents will get their noses out of joint if they have to play a school that came from the B12 (almost certainly not AAU). What is the impact to BTN revenue if Rutgers or Maryland get relegated? The EPL does not have these issues.
Since relegation is unlikely the B1G/SEC will need to keep open access to the playoff for it to be considered valid outside the limited schools in those conferences or we will go back to the days of several national champions.
LikeLike
The arguments for NU and RU/UMD also apply to the Bay Area schools.
Obviously a difference between already being in the B10 and being outside, I’m aware. But, IMO, adding major metros (big plus if the schools are also huge) has been a very successful strategy for the B10 so far. Probably will become an even bigger one as NIL grows in importance.
LikeLike
They do to some extent, the question is the numerical value.
NW gets the benefit of the doubt for over 100 years of membership. If UIUC wasn’t a member, NW would bring the Chicago market and all of IL into play so I guess the two schools each get 1/2 credit for that. NW hasn’t directly brought a lot in the revenue sports, though FB has been decent for the past almost 30 years. But NW did prop up the academic standards for decades before some of the land grants (like OSU) became more selective, and that means something to the B10. But if they weren’t already a member, I doubt NW would get an offer in today’s world (which is stupid, but it’s where we are).
Nobody doubts the academic credentials of Cal and Stanford. They would raise the bar, but I think that’s of limited value to the B10 now since the bar is already so high. It’s harder to quantify it’s monetary value, too. They need the cover of a more valuable addition to hide the numbers. Coming with the LA pair would’ve worked, but now it may require ND.
The B10’s TV revenue went up $50-60M in one year after adding RU/UMD. And that was in 2015 dollars and earlier in the contract. But NYC + DC + Philly + Baltimore (+NY +MD) is much larger than just SF and part of NorCal. We’ve seen the estimates that the 2 SF schools would bring a $90M value combined. That would’ve been enough in the past, but not when the B10 is approaching $100M per school per year in revenue. Would RU + UMD be valuable enough to add now that BTN is slowly shrinking? I think so because of the number of media markets involved, especially NYC. Being small and private with a dispersed alumni base also hurts Stanford’s cause (much like NW), but it has a much better brand than Cal in FB (and the ND series). Cal is larger, but with a small base of actual fans.
The best argument for the NorCal 2 is that their ratings would go up playing in the B10. 3 CA teams plus ND plus a lot of OSU, MI, PSU, WI, MSU, and NE has to help. And no games lost to the P12N. If they attract more fans and viewers, then SF becomes more valuable. I still don’t think the math works for them in the current model, though. They need to ride ND’s coattails, and that probably means just Stanford. Maybe if UNC and UVA come, they could come along.
If it wasn’t for football, expanding beyond 16 would be much simpler. But I think the B10 is going to be really cautious going forward. If ND or UNC isn’t involved, I don’t think they go past 16.
LikeLike
If it wasn’t for football, expanding beyond 16 would be much simpler. But I think the B10 is going to be really cautious going forward. If ND or UNC isn’t involved, I don’t think they go past 16.
The Big Ten was cautious even about expanding from 11 to 12! The people predicting the dominoes to fall overnight forget that the league waited 21 years to add Nebraska. Major conferences, certainly including the Big Ten and the SEC, view expansion as a “forever” decision—something you do not take lightly.
I agree that it is hard to imagine a plausible expansion that does not involve one or both of ND or UNC. If it takes 20 years or longer for that to happen, that is how long they will wait.
LikeLike
Yeah even if there are schools out there that reasonably fit like say Washington, hard to see Big Ten making a move until the next major target is worked out…
Back at 11, Nebraska (as well as ND and Texas were pretty obvious major targets).
At 12, Maryland made sense as the major target to move towards DC and get into major markets in the East Coast. UVA or Rutgers as the 14th made sense. (I think UVA was the original #14 target but they valued the other ACC connections to Tobacco Road more than just MD making a run for money, and their Prez came out and committed to the ACC and said they wouldn’t leave).
At 14, USC and UCLA are the obvious addition as we discussed endlessly last year though most of us found it difficult to imagine them coming alone. I think that’s why we felt 2 or 4 others would join fast.
But after thinking it through, it doesn’t make sense to rush to 17+ when there’s still 2 major schools left on the board.
ND and UNC are the last “obvious” targets on the field after the Big Ten took Nebraska, Maryland, USC/UCLA and SEC took Texas/A&M/OU.
Sure there’s other schools worth looking at such as Washington/Oregon/Stanford or UVA/FSU/Clemson/Miami/VA Tech.
But you have to he cautious.
I will say I do think Big Ten may target UVA hard as #17 as early as 2032 as a way of trying to get UNC to lean to the Big Ten.
I think UVA which has leadership that is more inclined to want to be associated with prestigious research institutions I’d guess is the way to get UNC if the ACC implodes.
You have 4 years to sort out #17-20 if you work on UVA hard around 2032.
LikeLike
If the B10 were choosing its members all over again, and ignoring tradition, I think it’s exceedingly unlikely they would want two Indiana schools.
If you imagine a world where the B10 exists today with no Indiana schools, I think almost all of us would guess that at most one of Indiana or Purdue is getting in.
LikeLike
Very true, and IU has all the hoops titles so I think I know which way they’d lean. But ideally ND would be the team from IN.
2 schools from IL also seems unlikely in that same scenario.
MSU’s success in revenue sports would allow for 2 schools from MI.
LikeLike
The mutant spawn of Skip Bayless and Joe Buck strikes again.
LikeLike
Oops, ‘contracts’.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/sports-betting/2022/05/04/online-sports-betting-california-voters-decide-november/9637465002/
Maybe gambling is the key to increasing CFB interest in CA? It certainly has worked for the NFL.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/sports/2022/7/18/22FBMD.aspx
The B10 media days are next week in Indianapolis again. Before Indy, Chicago was always the host since B10 HQ is there.
But why isn’t the B10 trying to get more media coverage by holding it in a true media center? The B10 has NYC in its footprint (sort of), with ESPN conveniently located not too far away. In a couple of years it will also have LA (and Fox) in the footprint. Stop using Indy and go to the big markets. Chicago works well enough, but it just isn’t the same center of sports media as NYC and LA are. The media will pour into Destin for SEC media days, but Indy doesn’t seem to have the same appeal.
LikeLike
The SEC annual meeting takes place in Sandestin Florida. SEC media days moves around a bit. Usually in Hoover Alabama, but this year it took place at the College Football Hall of Fame in Atlanta.
LikeLike
In the grand scheme of things, media days probably don’t matter when it comes to what’s important (drawing viewers and dollars). They’re so far away from football season that whatever hype is generated among casual fans won’t have any effect once games take place. The folks who pay attention tend to be die-hards who will watch their team anyway.
Didn’t the Pac hold media days in NYC one year?
What good did that do them?
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter much, but getting into NYC is the only good thing RU has really done for the B10. We might as well try to take advantage of it. When in NYC, ESPN can then have coaches go through the car wash at Bristol. It could be a way to get a little more attention, and lets NYC alumni have an event to attend. Same thing holding it in LA.
My thought was that the only value to holding it in Indy is cheap travel. Doing something on a coast may help with the flyover state, boring image. It makes sense for B10 championships where whole teams and thousands of fans need to travel, but 4 people per school going to NYC isn’t that tough.
LikeLike
If/when the Bears build a new stadium on that 300+ acre racecourse they’re buying, I’d assume that will likely be the epicenter of all Big Ten events eventually (especially if domed), but who knows when that’ll happen.
Theoretically could happen in the next couple of years but their current lease with Soldier Field doesn’t end until 2033 and I don’t know if they can break that lease.
LikeLike
Well apparently it’s not all that bad for the Bears to break the lease. If they do so around 2026, it’d cost roughly $90 million (it’s around 150% of the remaining years left on the lease).
Can’t see that being prohibitive if they spend $1.2-1.5 billion on a stadium that they’d fully own on a 300+ acre parcel that becomes an entire development complex. And that cost goes down around $12 million a year.
Could easily see Big Ten media days and the football championship there in a couple years.
LikeLike
Apparently paying for the stadium will be an issue, though. Public financing may be hard to get (Chicago won’t help, and the state might not), and the family isn’t that rich. They made need to develop some of the surrounding land first to raise money. I assume they’ll do some sort of mixed use development with high end stores and restaurants plus condos and apartments. That gives them a steady income to help pay off the debt.
Maybe NW can start playing more games at Soldier Field (vs ND, or vs IL)? Those fans would appreciate the venue. Maybe OSU and MI too, just for the extra ticket sales?
The B10 could hold an outdoor hockey game there, then let the top club hockey (IL and ?) programs play a game since the ice is there.
LikeLike
Yeah I can easily see the venue getting a lot of use or trying to work its way to that if/when it gets built.
As far as Northwestern goes, I believe they’ll also be building a $400-500 million stadium “renovation” (basically full rebuild) around the same target date 2026, so they may not want to give up too many home games outside of their Wrigley Field deal for a game there every so often.
Either way that’d be a big step up for Chicago for 2 stadiums that sorely need it.
LikeLike
I don’t know exactly how much $ Northwestern has raised to the project as of now, but I’m pretty confident the # is around $250-300 million at the moment, so a $400+ million stadium renovation seems pretty reasonable.
Either way after a project like that, they’re going to want home games in Evanston with a novelty game at Wrigley here or there.
LikeLike
I was thinking they could replace the Wrigley games. We know a full field will easily fit in the Bears’ stadium.
Money is not an issue for NW. That’s like 1 wine and cheese party’s worth of donations for them.
What happens to the recently renovated Soldier Field? Knock it down? Have UChicago bring back big time football?
LikeLike
That’s the problem of the City of Chicago but NU isn’t moving games from Evanston to Soldier Field (other than during the year(s) of renovations).
LikeLike
Richard,
I was just curious if locals knew of any plans for its future. I know the city has been fighting to keep the Bears in town, but it seems like that ship has now sailed since the Bears rejected the Soldier Field renovation plan. Some cities keep old stadiums around, others knock them down pretty quickly.
Like I said, I was thinking about NW using Soldier Field in place of Wrigley for special games. NW has played ND and IL there before. I’m not saying NW owes Soldier Field anything, I just thought it might be a better venue for football (and allow NW to sell more tickets).
LikeLike
Yes for ND if NW wants to play them; ND often mandates a large stadium in its contracts. No for Illinois (or if ND joins B1G) since NW does not have to.
LikeLike
Maybe, but the B10 already started moving MBB around. LA will presumably be in that rotation once, and maybe NYC again. Playing the CCG in LA once or twice could be nice – The Rose Bowl would do nicely.
A domed Chicago stadium certainly could get at least half of the CCGs. Indy is a good host and the B10 seems to like it there for FB and BB. But who knows? In 2040 they might be playing the MBB tournament in Greensboro, NC.
LikeLike
The MBB tournament can and probably should move around.
If the B10 football CCG stays neutral site, a domed stadium in Chicago, as a major hub airport in the middle of the country with a ton of B10 alums, makes more sense than anywhere else.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Big Ten football CCG in Las Vegas, Phoenix, or LA (SoFi).
LikeLike
@Mike: I would be surprised to see the Big Ten CCG in a state that is not in the conference footprint.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t see Las Vegas or Phoenix as options unless the B10 adds local schools.
If playing in LA, why go to SoFi when you have the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum? I know the new stadium is super fancy and all, but don’t 2 teams share it? It might be tough to schedule it for a CCG anyway. Besides, I think I can guess where more midwesterners would prefer to watch a game at least once.
LikeLike
2033 is about the time that the Bears could open a new stadium if they are going after partial public financing like most NFL teams. Actual construction to occupancy of NFL stadiums is typically 3 years so if they were ready to move dirt it would still be 2025.
LikeLike
MWC buyout levels from commissioner interview:
“Thompson said there is an exit fee of $16.5 million if a team gives over a year’s notice but that number is doubled to $33 million if it is one year or less notice.”
Currently distribute around $4 million per year per school.
Obviously not going to stop someone from leaving for the Pac-12 or Big 12, but just worth noting.
LikeLike
It’s remarkable that so many of the lower-tier conferences have agreed to exit fees that high. No Gang-of-Five exit fee is so high that it actually prevents a school from leaving. In other words, the fee does not hold the conference together; it’s a tollbooth, not a roadblock.
This is in contrast to the grants of rights in the P5, which are meant to prevent members from leaving during the term of the agreement—and have been successful at it. I am pretty sure no G5 league has a grant of rights.
If you are a member of the MWC, why do you agree to a fee like that when you know you hope to pay it someday? It would be interesting to know if any of the “usual expansion suspects” voted no when the fee was instituted?
LikeLike
My hunch is that the number of schools who believe they don’t have a shot at a P5 invite outnumber the number of schools who do and they had the majority to at least extracr something from a departing member.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a great set of points, and I have to wonder how/why Boise State or UNLV or SDSU (3 of the ones that come up the most in these discussions) would agree to it.
It’s possible that it was done over their objections, which would make sense in some respect.
Reminds me of the Maryland/FSU situation back when both voted against raising the exit fee for the ACC from $20 million to $50 million after the ACC gave ND their deal. Maryland was able to bring that down after suing and settling to around $31 million, but it was still pretty clear that those 2 were ones that could/would have exit options in the early 2010s.
Loh (with his connections to Big Ten schools) would have obviously known Maryland would be taken by the Big Ten if they wanted to leave the ACC.
And the FSU-SEC discussions have gone on so many times that it’s easy to see why they voted against it.
LikeLike
Throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s & 80s, Florida State had always lusted after the SEC. Then in the early 90s, Bobby Bowden convinced the admin to turn down the SEC when talks finally got serious.
LikeLike
New post on how dissolution isn’t a solution to get out of a Grant of Rights agreement:
LikeLike