It has been a whirlwind for the past three weeks since the Big Ten announced that it was expanding with USC and UCLA. I have a lot of thoughts on what the Big Ten will (or more likely, won’t) do in terms of further expansion, the fight for the upper hand between the Pac-12 and Big 12, and how conference realignment may impact the playoff.
At the top of my mind, though, is the ACC Grant of Rights agreement (the “GOR”) and how that document is holding the league together. As a reminder, the GOR entails each school of a conference granting control of its media rights to that conference for the term of the agreement. The real potential mass hysteria from conference realignment is the prospect of partial ACC member Notre Dame and/or full members such as Florida State, Clemson and North Carolina bolting for the Big Ten and/or SEC.
Several years ago, I examined the Big 12 GOR agreement and concluded the following:
[T]he GOR’s strength isn’t that it’s an ironclad complex agreement that doesn’t include any loopholes. Instead, it’s an arrangement that is a triple-dog-dare to schools that want to attempt to challenge it since there isn’t any reliable precedent about how to calculate damages. This is proverbial Russian roulette in a practical legal context – the damages could be more than you could imagine… or they could be less than what a normal exit fee would have been. That makes it a great moot court exercise for people like me and other writers in the peanut gallery, but a dangerous contract to challenge in real life. Lawsuits that are brought on principles other than money, such as constitutional challenges filed by the liberal ACLU or conservative American Center for Law and Justice, can afford to tackle these types of ambiguous arrangements. However, conference realignment is almost entirely about money, which means that the great risk of trying to challenge the GOR (even if there are viable legal arguments against it in theory) is likely going to be enough to dissuade any school from leaving a conference that has that type of contract in place.
Essentially, the only realistic way out of a GOR is for a departing school to offer a conference a crap ton of money far beyond a standard exit fee and hope that the conference accepts that offer. Note that a conference doesn’t even have to accept such offer and can simply continue to own that school’s media rights until the end of the GOR term. This means that the notion of “breaking” a GOR is a misnomer because it implies that the departing school has any control over getting out of the agreement (even if it’s willing to pay a massive amount of money). Instead, it is the conference that has the power to waive or not waive the GOR obligations in its absolute discretion (whether reasonable or unreasonable).
After the story broke about USC and UCLA moving to the Big Ten, Andy Staples of The Athletic interviewed an attorney that obtained and reviewed copies of the Big 12, ACC and Pac-12 GOR agreements and essentially came to same conclusion that I did: the GOR terms are almost shockingly short and simple, which actually makes them tougher to challenge in practicality.
That article did bring up one possible nuclear option to terminate a GOR: dissolve the conference entirely. The basic premise is that if the conference dissolves and ceases to exist, then any GOR inherently can’t exist and the rights would revert back to the member schools. Over the years, the dissolution of a conference is an Internet message board favorite theoretical mechanism for a league and/or its schools to get out of all types of unfavorable contracts or other obligations: bad TV contracts, exit fee penalties and, as discussed here, any GOR terms.
Of course, it would stand to reason any conference would want to make it really difficult to be dissolved and, furthermore, would want to prevent any schools with a clear conflict of interest against the league from making any type of dissolution vote. The conference bylaws would dictate what would be necessary to approve and complete a dissolution.
While I haven’t been able to obtain a copy of the ACC bylaws, the Big 12 has their bylaws freely available at its public website. The Big 12 is a great instructive example because the league has a GOR agreement and, by the fact that their bylaws are publicly available, the ACC or any other league would be able to copy them or draft similar bylaws. In a review of the bylaws, it’s clear that the lawyers drafting them fully anticipated all of those future Internet message board arguments of schools trying to avoid penalties, exit fees and specifically the GOR by dissolving the league and actively wrote their bylaws to prevent that from happening.
For some context, these bylaws were approved by the current 10-team Big 12, so this was after the threat of the formation of the Pac-16 (where Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado would have joined the then-Pac-10) and the actual defections of Nebraska to the Big Ten, Colorado to the Pac-12, and Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC. Not surprisingly, the conference members likely wanted to ensure that there couldn’t be any shenanigans from anyone (cough Texas cough) to leave the others high and dry via a dissolution or other votes where they would have significant conflicts of interest.
Let’s dive into what it would take to dissolve the Big 12. Note that each member has a seat on the Big 12 Board of Directors for voting matters. The Director appointed from each school is its Chief Executive Officer (e.g. president, chancellor, etc.). From Section 1.52(b) of the Big 12 bylaws:
The following actions may be taken only if approved by the affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors (as defined below):
***
(2) The dissolution, liquidation, winding-up, merger, sale, or transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the Conference…
Note that those that can vote on a dissolution aren’t all members of the Big 12, but rather a Supermajority of “Disinterested Directors” of the league. What does that mean? Here are the relevant definitions under Section 1.5.2.2:
(a) The term “Disinterested Director(s)” with respect to any issue shall mean each person who: (i) is then duly qualified and serving as a member of the Board of Directors pursuant to Sections 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 below; (ii) is the Director representative of a Member that has not Withdrawn and has not been precluded from voting on the matter in question as a Sanctioned Member; and (iii) is not an Interested Director (as defined below) with respect to such issue.
***
(c ) The term “Interested Director(s)” with respect to any issue means any Director who has personally, or as to which the Member that such Director represents has institutionally, a direct or indirect material interest in the subject matter of the issue (or series of related issues) being considered by the Board of Directors, that, in the judgment of a majority of the other Directors who are not Interested Directors with respect to such issue or series related issues, could reasonably be expected to impact adversely the objectivity of such Director in voting on such issue or issues. The interests that all Members have in common as the beneficial members of the Conference (even if such interests have disparate effects among Members) will not, in and of itself, cause the Director representing such Member to be an Interested Director with respect to an issue or issues impacting all Members as the beneficial members of the Conference. Any Director who has been determined to be an “Interested Director” in accordance with the foregoing may appeal such determination only in accordance with the following: (i) such Director shall submit a written appeal to the Commissioner and the highest ranking officer of the Board of Directors who has not been determined to be an Interested Director with respect to such issue, if any; (ii) the Commissioner and such highest ranking officer (if any) shall mutually determine and promptly notify such Interested Director with respect to their (or if there is no such officer, the Commissioner’s) determination on the matter, which determination shall set forth whether such Director is deemed to be an “Interested Director” on the matter in question; and (iii) the determination made by the Commissioner and any such highest ranking officer of the Board of Directors shall be final and binding on the Director(s) appealing the initial determination by the other Directors.
***
(f) The term “Supermajority of Disinterested Directors” with respect to any issue shall mean seventy five percent (75%) or more of all persons who are Disinterested Directors with respect to such issue, whether or not each is Present at a meeting considering such issue or signs a written consent with respect to such issue.
Essentially, (a) a Disinterested Director is someone that isn’t an Interested Director and (b) an Interested Director is someone that has been determined by the rest of the league to have a conflict of interest in the applicable matter.
Another key term is that a Disinterested Director must be from a school that has not “Withdrawn” from the conference… and this is where I give kudos to the lawyers that drafted these bylaws.
Here is how a member Withdraws or, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, is deemed to have Withdrawn from the conference under Section 3.2 of the bylaws (emphasis added in the bolded text):
Withdrawing Member. A Member (a “Withdrawing Member”) may Withdraw, or shall be deemed to have Withdrawn, as a Member of the Conference: (i) if it gives notice of the intent to Withdraw to the Conference; or (ii) if a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future; (B) breaches or evidences its intent to breach or not honor and fully comply with its obligations to the Conference under these Bylaws or the Grant of Rights Agreement for the entirety of the respective terms thereof; (C) if a third party offers to, or attempts to induce a Member to, leave the Conference and/or breach or not to fully perform its future obligations under the Grant of Rights Agreement and the Member does not both (1) inform the Conference of such action as promptly as possible (but in any event not later than twelve (12) hours after such action) and (2) immediately and unconditionally reject that offer in a form and manner reasonably acceptable to the Commissioner; or (D) if a Member otherwise takes or fails to take actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to be contrary to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole.
Subsection (i) is the clear situation where a school gives notice to the conference that it wants to Withdraw. That’s easy.
It’s subsection (ii) that really serves to protect schools from any clandestine attempts by other members to get around the GOR or take other drastic measures, such as dissolution. That clause effectively gives Disinterested Directors the ability to deem a school to have Withdrawn from the league (and thereby losing their voting rights) if (a) there are statements or actions that make it appear that school is attempting to leave the league, (b) a school breaches or intends to breach the bylaws or specifically the GOR or (c ) a school fails to provide the conference with notice within 12 hours of a third party offer or inducement for that school to leave the league or breach its GOR obligations.
Thus, it doesn’t matter if a school that is trying to leave the conference provides notice of withdrawal or not. As soon as the other members suspect that a school is taking to actions to get out of the GOR specifically (much less leave the league entirely), those other members can deem such school to have Withdrawn from the league and lose its voting rights in the process.
Now, in theory, some schools could conceivably get together a call for a dissolution vote before the other members can deem them to be Withdrawn. However, in practicality, if a school suddenly says, “We’re calling a vote for a dissolution of the conference today” out of nowhere, every other member is going to instantly know that the only reason that’s happening is that school wants to leave the conference and/or break the GOR. Those other members would then invoke the clause that allows them to deem that school to have Withdrawn from the league.
Plus, even if several schools are able to get a dissolution vote passed initially, the left behind members would instantly file a lawsuit and it would invariably come out in discovery that the departing schools were acting in contravention of the bylaws prior to that vote. That would mean that the left behind members would have a strong claim that the departing schools should have either been deemed to have Withdrawn from the conference or defined as Interested Parties that should never have been allowed to vote for dissolution. In turn, that dissolution vote would be deemed invalid and the left behind schools could continue the operations of the conference and enforce any obligations, including but not limited to GOR terms and exit penalties.
To be sure, I don’t know whether the ACC has similar language in its own bylaws. If someone out there has a copy, I would love to review it. However, if the ACC bylaws have terms that are anywhere close to the Big 12 bylaws, even attempting to dissolve the conference entirely wouldn’t get rid of the GOR because the dissolution of the league for the purpose of getting rid of the GOR would be prevented in the first place.
This goes back to a basic statement to anyone that believes that a school can “break the GOR” to leave for another league: There is NO magic legal silver bullet to break the GOR. The fact that Texas and Oklahoma still haven’t figured out how to extricate themselves from the Big 12 GOR just 2 years early (much less 14 years early in the case of any ACC school wanting to leave that league since that GOR runs until 2036) shows in real life how difficult it is to end any GOR obligations prior to their contractual termination date.
People need to stop looking at the GOR as a legal issue and start examining it as a financial issue. If a school wants to get out of its GOR obligations, then it’s going to be a purely financial decision of whether paying out a massive amount of damages to its current conference is worth it in relation to any increased rights revenue from a new conference. It could very well be the case that whatever GOR damages that a school leaving the ACC would need to pay would be more than compensated by the higher levels of rights fees in the Big Ten or SEC. However, no one should pretend that a school leaving a conference is going to “break the GOR” and get out with minimal or no damages. (Image from TV Guide)
Follow @frankthetank111
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
B1G #1
LikeLike
Absolutely and every early exit in prior conference changes has included a payout. The dollars associated with the ACC GOR in particular are so large due to the number of years left are going to make any kind of move to be so overwhelming beneficial that a university would want to go down that road.
LikeLike
OMG!
LikeLike
What a great idea for a blog post!
LikeLike
Great analysis Frank.
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hook ‘Em
LikeLike
That was a deeply informative look at the GoR situation, and I truly appreciate you spending so much time to share your research and insight..
As a Big Ten fan (Maryland) I have been curious who we may seek to add, in addition to USC and UCLA. I had my eye on the ACC, as well as schools that remain in the PAC 12 (Oregon/Wash/Stanford). Naturally, it’d be great to have Notre Dame finally get on board, but I’m not holding my breath. If ND becomes unviable, California could serve as that 4th school.. Regardless, I still wonder whether an ACC school will get an invite to the Big Ten and go for it. Time will tell, it always does.
LikeLike
We all have our eyes on UNC and UVA (and maybe Duke right now if required).
UNC is probably the big battleground between the Big Ten and SEC.
Key for Big Ten is to offer a new “ACC quad” in the Big Ten of Maryland, UNC, UVA, Duke to preserve rivalries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As things stand now, such a shift probably won’t happen until 2036, by which time it likely would enlarge the Big Ten from 20 to 24 members. (If Notre Dame is already in, Georgia Tech might complete the group of ACC emigres; if ND stays independent a few years longer and the B1G decides to instead enlarge its western flank to go to 20, the Irish might bump GT as member #24.)
LikeLike
The general opinion among SEC folks is that UNC has a good chance of joining the SEC, but Virginia is less likely to go to the SEC but not impossible. It could be Virginia to the Big Ten and UNC to the SEC. But it sounds like it’ll be a long time before we find out and a lot can change between now and then.
LikeLike
Of course SEC people say that. And many B10 people say they’ll join the B10. I tend to think they want to stay together and both go to the same place, but I have zero evidence for that.
Nobody really knows, especially not what they’ll decide in over a decade.
LikeLike
If it’s going to be over a decade, then yes, who knows what the landscape will look like then. Impossible to say.
LikeLike
Given the century-old ties between UVa and UNC, I can’t imagine them heading for separate conferences. Both are culturally better fits for the B1G, especially with their AAU status; the SEC can solve its regional needs with non-AAU Virginia Tech and NCSU.
LikeLike
The B1G end game is Notre Dame, UNC, and UVA.
LikeLike
College Park to the ACC: “That’s your problem.”
I’m also interested in the UCLA/UC Regents/Gavin Newsom controversy. Could this be resolved by enabling (or should we say “forcing”) the Big Ten to take Berkeley? Otherwise, it looks as if Cal will be relegated to the Mountain Way, an ill-suited neighborhood for a campus of that caliber.
LikeLike
Oopsie — “Mountain West.”
LikeLike
Could this be resolved by enabling (or should we say “forcing”) the Big Ten to take Berkeley?
Most estimates suggest that the B1G would lose money on Cal. I think the Big Ten would not agree to lose money to placate Gavin Newsom. If the Cal politicians put their foot down, then the Big Ten says bye to UCLA and invites its next best candidate, which is probably Stanford or Washington. I do not expect it will get to that.
LikeLike
Yeah it’s hard to see the path for Cal to come to the Big Ten.
Washington and Stanford as you note would likely be ahead of them and would work as replacements. Stanford at least has the annual ND game going for them, which is probably enough to put them ahead of Cal.
The AAU/academics situation with Oregon makes them iffy. They are considerably below Nebraska on most academic prestige metrics… so it may be a hard sell given Big Ten presidents would know if Oregon’s being told to leave the AAU.
It sucks that we have to say things like this about a great university like Cal, but this has all become a cut-throat business.
LikeLike
Correct. Nebraska is currently in 14th place and does about half as much research as #13 Iowa. Oregon does about half as much research as Nebraska. Academically they are not a fit for the Big Ten. They will almost certainly be pushed out of the AAU like Nebraska, Iowa State, and Syracuse were. Probably soon.
LikeLike
vp0819,
All the experts say Newsom and the regents don’t have the power to stop UCLA. They can punish UCLA in other ways (make them share some money with Cal, reduce funding to UCLA, etc.), though.
But really, this is political grandstanding. Newsom knows exactly why UCLA left and how much this will help them, and USC was going to leave anyway so most of the damage to Cal was unavoidable. If USC and Stanford (or UW, or UO) were the pair leaving, the P12 would still get a similarly small new deal but both Cal and UCLA would suffer. And because the B10 had options, UCLA had no leverage to “force” an invitation for Cal.
UCLA probably should’ve been a little more open with the regents right before the move. Have a private meeting and explain the move to them, and how they had no power to help Cal in this scenario.
LikeLike
Here’s what I think is going to happen in the short term: nothing.
– PAC-12 will stay at 10 (maybe rename themselves again) because no Big XII team will move (the money will essentially be no different, it’ll cost to much to leave, and who wants a mostly PST schedule) and any MWC team will just dilute per-school payments.
– BIG XII will stay on the same path (onboarding new schools, departing OU & TX). I think if there’s an additional move to be made the 4 corners moving over would be it, but I still think that’s less than a 50% chance. Again, the money will probably not be all that different, and better the devil you know.
– ND will stay independent. They’ll get a good bump from NBC. Maybe not the $75 m total they want, but enough to stay independent for the forceable future.
– Big 10 will stay at 16. Unless ND comes there’s just nothing else available that’s worth it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t structure their new contract to end right around the time the ACC GOR ends just in case, but no movement until 2030 at the earliest.
– SEC: see Big 10
– ACC: are stuck with their lot in life. ESPN may throw them a small bone or two for a minor uptick in revenue, but unless they get something back why would ESPN renegotiate a contract that’s pretty favorable to them?
Its been fun to speculate, but I think (at the P2+Other 3 level) we’re basically done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m inclined to agree with you. But eventually I think Notre Dame goes to the Big 10. And sometime around the mid 2030s, we go through another, major, unpredictable round of realignment.
I don’t necessarily think it will cost a gazillion dollars to leave the ACC early. But it would require everyone to make more money, starting with ESPN. The extra advertising for FSU and UNC in the SEC would have to exceed the drop in the ACC and the extra rights fees. I have no idea if this would be the case. The ACC would most likely make more money in this scenario, so they would be inclined to let FSU and UNC go. The ACC is undervalued, so ESPN would almost certainly have to keep the rights fees the same, which, when divided 12 ways instead of 14, means more for everyone–the 12 remaining, FSU, UNC and ESPN. But again, that is all dependent on more big matchups in the SEC making more net for ESPN. Otherwise ESPN will torpedo it like Fox and ESPN shut down Big 12 expansion a few years back and the Pac 16 idea. Then you get back to a gazillion dollars to leave early.
LikeLike
– PAC-12 will stay at 10 (maybe rename themselves again) because no Big XII team will move (the money will essentially be no different, it’ll cost to much to leave, and who wants a mostly PST schedule) and any MWC team will just dilute per-school payments.
Given all the noise from the Big 12 about raiding the PAC, I feel like they will almost have to attempt expansion. My first choice would be to invite the entire ACC, but who knows if that’s even feasible. If that doesn’t work, invite Houston, TCU, Kansas, and Iowa St (Baylor and Texas Tech if the money’s right for 16). I feel it would be extraordinarily hard for those schools to turn down a relationship with Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Colorado even if the money is similar. It would effectively turn the Big 12 into the AAC and stabilize the PAC if there is another Big Ten defection.
LikeLike
Nathan, I concur with your analysis. The Big ten and SEC will stay at 16 each until circa 2036 and ND will stay “independent” and try to milk $75 million out of NBC for what the network now pays $15 million/ yr. Two issues with that:
1. Is five obligated games to ACC cupcakes plus three dedicated annual games to USC, Stanford and Navy “independence”? It sounds a lot like a school in a conference right now.
2. Who is going to be the “shoulder buddies” with ND to elevate NBC’s sinking ND home game platform? Going from $15 million to $75 million is quintupling ND’s payout from NBC. What games from what conference will bring enough eyeballs to justify that?
LikeLike
Colin,
I mostly agree with you here.
1. ND gets 1 of the big ACC brands every year plus 4 cupcakes. Most importantly for them, that moves their games around geographically. They also move the Navy game around a bit. But as conferences get larger, the ND schedule does look more and more like a conference schedule where you only play teams every other year, or even once every 3 years.
2. The ND deal averages $15M per year, but is around $22M now. So it’s “only” going up 3.5 times. Also remember that the SEC’s CBS package went up almost 6x ($55M to around $300M) because it was so undervalued. ND’s deal is old and undervalued as well.
LikeLike
Is five obligated games to ACC cupcakes plus three dedicated annual games to USC, Stanford and Navy “independence”? It sounds a lot like a school in a conference right now.
They played the dedicated USC, Stanford, and Navy games before they joined the ACC. Those are games they want every year, but they could drop them if they so desired. Even before joining the ACC, they typically played 2–3 of those teams per year anyway, so the jump up to 5 was not that substantial. All they did was to drop Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue, which were previously annual or nearly so.
I always thought that ND was in a “synthetic conference,” with most of their schedule consisting of teams they played regularly—almost as if they were in a conference. Half-joining the ACC was not that much of a change.
LikeLike
That’s part of why the olden days of conferences bothered them. In the B10 they’d play 8 of 10 or 11 teams every year, plus 2-3 of their other rivals (USC, Navy, maybe Stanford). That leaves very little control of their schedule, and might turn off their fans. But in an 18 team B10 that includes USC, the schedule has a lot more variety.
LikeLike
I know a LOT of actual Notre Dame alums (not just T-shirt fans). What a lot of non-ND people don’t understand is that independence isn’t merely about football scheduling or the NBC TB contract, but rather a core part of the school’s institutional identity. Being an independent school is essentially just right below being a Catholic school in terms of being a core institutional value. That goes far beyond football and why all of the “logical” arguments that ND is more than halfway to being a conference member anyway completely falls on deaf ears with Domers.
Also note that the financial power of ND doesn’t come from a handful of mega-donors (a la Phil Knight at Oregon) or the administration, but rather the collective mass of the whole ND alumni base that effectively tithes donations to the school as if it were the Catholic Church itself.
That means that even though ND might be the most elitist school in all of college football, it’s also very populist in its decision-making in the sense that it truly depends on its whole alumni base being happy. At 99% of schools, the threat of unhappy alums is generally an empty one, but it’s a very real threat at ND. The school has a fundraising operation that makes even places like Ohio State and Alabama look like the minor leagues by comparison and that money means a lot more to ND’s financial picture than any additional TV money.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’ve always felt that feelings about independence and specific conferences is a bit generational among ND fans. Nobody that was around for Yost’s behavior is still alive. Few people that were around for decisions made during the war are still alive (so feelings about Navy vary). Younger alumni don’t feel the exact same way as older alumni about these issues. Over time, you see the feelings changing. All these years in the ACC for all sports and half in for football is having a little impact on their views.
I agree that independence is important to them, but even they have stated 3 things are more important (and none of them were Catholicism, so we’ll assume that’s an understood 4th thing). They need to keep up reasonably well financially, they need a “fair” path to a championship, and they need a committed TV partner. I’d say another one is a place to park their other sports.
I think money and a TV partner are always likely to be there for them. But if NFL lite happens, they will have to make a choice. To win the title, you have to be in the league. You can’t have an independent in a superleague scenario. I doubt the next CFP iteration will be a problem, but the 3rd version might. If the B10 and SEC start to really dominate due to their financial edge, will ND be happy playing 5 ACC games a year if it is considered as lesser conference?
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. While independence is very much an identity issue for ND’s most devoted fans, their absolute devotion to maintaining it seems to have softened in recent years. I was looking at some of the ND fanboards and subreddits, and comparing them to 12 years ago, it’s shocking how much more open the Irish faithful are to joining the Big Ten. Indeed, after the USC and UCLA announcement, the official ND subreddit put up a poll asking respondents to choose between maintaining independence, joining the Big Ten, and joining the ACC and the absolute majority voted in favor of joining the Big Ten. Now that is not necessarily a fair sample of ND donors, but it certainly suggests that football independence is no longer quite the priority it used to be.
LikeLike
Frank: “What a lot of non-ND people don’t understand is that independence isn’t merely about football scheduling or the NBC TB contract, but rather a core part of the school’s institutional identity.”
I think we’re all well aware of that. Call it snob factor, elitism, whatever. For years the domers have been squealing that they are a NATIONAL school, not a regional school in a conference.
It would obviously be far more practical for scheduling all other sports if a school is in a conference, hence ND’s affiliation with the ACC. And of course the logistics of team travel are easier for any school if they belong to a local conference.
LikeLike
Well, good thoughts, but ND’s Olympic sports are all members of the ACC. For ND, Independence is really about football, it’s national brand and owning their scheduling despite what a few tailgating fans think.
LikeLike
I think the SEC stays as is for the next 10+ years.
The Big Ten probably adds Notre Dame and Stanford. Then stays at 18 for 10+ years.
There will be movement with the Pac. It won’t say as it is. It’ll either expand or break apart.
LikeLike
*won’t stay as it is.
LikeLike
I’m hoping we start referring to the FBS conferences as the Power 2 and the Group of 8.
I also hope we stop referring to the highest level as ‘FBS’.
LikeLike
Danny,
I don’t think conference terminology will change until realignment settles down. I don’t think G8 will catch on, as the middle 3 are well above the level of the G5 at the moment. The AAC has been the dominant G5 conference for a while, but it just lost its top 3 programs to the B12. The brings the MWC back into the discussion as the top G5, but it’s still well behind the middle 3.
If things stop as they are, it could be P2, M3, G5 but I think P5 and G5 will stick.
If the P12 loses 8 members, then the B12 could be part of a P4 with a G5 where the P12 remnants absorb the MWC but stay a G5.
For all this talk of a P2, the ACC is the the other conference that has been dominating the CFP title game lately. It seems a little premature to demote them from the top echelon just because they will fall further behind financially. I think the P5 (or P4) will maintain clear separation from the G5.
When I think the nomenclature might change:
* If in the 2030s further realignment drastically changes things
* If after a prolonged period of the B10 and SEC running away in money, the same results show on the field
* If structural changes to CFB (like some conferences paying players, or different numbers of coaches/scholarships, etc.) create new groupings
LikeLike
Eventually, there will be a P2, the B12, and the G7.
LikeLike
I think it’s probable that the ACC bylaws have a very similar provision. The ACC would no doubt have asked what other conferences had done, and in this small world, I bet there is someone who was happy to tell them.
It’s interesting that Texas agreed to those bylaws—or is not known to have disagreed. Those rules make it awfully difficult on the teams that leave, and it was reasonably predictable that they were going to do that some point, or at least to consider it.
LikeLike
If they pushed back on the bylaws, it would have been even more obvious they were looking to leave.
LikeLike
Texas and Oklahoma agreed due to timing. They were just informed that there would be no haircut due to A&M and MO leaving, but any additions would be dilutive (sort of where P12 is now). Both wanted to continue the B12 with 10 schools. Texas had it new Longhorn network and that was not compatible with other conferences. If Texas had a crystal ball that told them their on field football performance would suck for the next 10 years and that the only thing worse than LHN would be the P12N I doubt Texas would have signed. It was designed by the Little8 to prevent TX and OK from bolting and it seems to have done its job, at least up to its expiration date.
LikeLike
ESPN (Dan Murphy) that Warren will discuss with a players association about revenue sharing.
LikeLike
This is something that would blow up college sports. Really unpredictable how it would play out.
LikeLike
Again, I ask does anyone watch USFL? Will anyone watch an inferior semipro league?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is hard to create a new team and make it popular. It is also hard to lose popularity once it has been acquired. College football has fan support that built up over generations, and that has tended to persist, no matter how they change it.
College football already IS the de facto minor league for the NFL, and has been for a long time. Players have been “paid” in various ways for decades, both legally and illegally. Thus far, it has not mattered much to the sport’s popularity.
LikeLike
I think the true red line is whether the players are students or not. If they are, it’s still college football and will survive NIL, transfer portal, players being employees, collective bargaining, etc. If the players no longer attend the schools and the teams are merely “sponsored” by the universities, then college football is done and the popularity will crater.
LikeLike
If they aren’t students, it kills the sport.
If they form unions and strike, it kills the sport.
LikeLike
Christian,
I also think players being paid employees will be a bright red line for many fans.
LikeLike
I suppose we’ll see about any of that. Paid athletes competing in the Olympics didn’t kill the Olympics. Neither did unions kill the pro sports (strikes had an effect, but any strikes do to any business). In the end, the majority of fans are cheering for jerseys with some cheering for specific athletes.
LikeLike
Marc,
Attendance is down. There is mixed evidence on CFB TV ratings. Certainly some teams have lost fan support as they’ve been winning less (NE, TN, FSU, …). As the B10 and SEC pull away from the rest financially, the G5 and even other P5 fans may lose interest. The latest changes are having some impact.
LikeLike
Bob,
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/07/usfl-championship-ratings-most-watched-since-opening-weekend/
Apparently some people do watch the USFL. They average 715k viewers per game in the regular season, with 1.52M for the title game. The first 2 games of the season drew 3.07M and 2.15M.
In the current era of television, the USFL title game ranked 46th out of the 63 total primetime shows on the “Big Four” last week, including a middle-of-the-road sixth out of the 11 on FOX — behind the previous night’s Major League Baseball coverage (1.89M), “WWE Smackdown” last Friday (2.14M), “Masterchef” last Wednesday (2.23M) and the pairing of “Don’t Forget the Lyrics” (1.82M) and “Beat Shazam” (1.81M) the preceding Monday.
The ratings aren’t great, but it takes time to develop a new fan base and get people used to football in spring. On the other hand, 13 of 20 XFL games from 2 years ago beat the USFL title game in viewers. So it’s not super-popular.
But as with CFB, it’s very local. In part that’s because all the teams played in one city. The league wants to change that for next year, thinking fans will get more excited if the local team actually plays locally. Birmingham fans only attended their teams games (12-17k), with just a few hundred at other games.
Locally, the game averaged a whopping 11.0 rating and 24 share in Birmingham, Ala., home of the champion Stallions and host to most of the USFL season.
Many of the USFL’s top local markets were cities that also watch a lot of CFB, and not cities with USFL teams. One big problem for the USFL is that the NFL cities paid no attention at all (why watch AAA when the majors are in your town?).
LikeLike
Signing on
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34262479/penn-state-qb-sean-clifford-big-ten-commissioner-kevin-warren-discuss-improving-benefits
Big Ten football players have had conversations with league commissioner Kevin Warren this week about giving athletes a bigger voice in the future and about improving a variety of benefits for players. Warren also spoke with the leader of a nascent players association about the possibility of having an independent group represent the players in conversations with the league.
…
He said he and the other players he has spoken with have no intention of creating a union or entering a contentious negotiation with the league at this point.
…
Clifford said thus far his conversations with Warren have focused on standardized medical care for players after their college careers have come to an end. He said Warren and leaders at Penn State have been receptive to the initial conversations about how to make a variety of improvements for players and former players.
…
Stahl spoke to Warren earlier this week about a trio of initial topics the CFBPA wants to negotiate with the Big Ten:
• A representative on each campus who can advocate for players during medical situations or other disputes. The representative would be hired by the CFBPA and serve an on-site role similar to the player representatives in professional sports unions;
• Funds from the conference to purchase medical insurance policies for former players that would cover the treatment of injuries from their college football careers;
• A to-be-determined percentage of media rights revenue for players.
I see no problem with most of that. I see no need to provide additional revenue sharing to amateur players who get free everything (room and bard, tuition, books, tutors, physical trainers, elite coaching, elite faciltities, …), especially when most fans support the name on the front of the jersey more than the one on the back (unlike many pro fans).
LikeLike
Revenue sharing raises all types of issues.
>> How is revenue shared with Basketball and all of the Olympic sports?
>> What are the Title IX implications (I am sure women’s organizations will be suing for half)?
>> Is the B1G (+SEC?) trying to make revenue sharing the only legal form of payment to players where they have a very large advantage (i.e., Booster payments illegal)?
>> To stay competitive will other conferences change the D1 rules to gut the non-revenue sports?
>> If revenue is shared that comes directly from the conference/shcool; hard to deny that is not an employer – employee relationship. As such can unions be far behind? Unfair labor practice suits?
>> Since the majority of colleges lose money on sports will states force schools to drop sports or drop down by preventing the use of any state money or student fees to support this spending?
LikeLike
It does, and that’s one reason I pointed it out as a problem. Things like health insurance seem like reasonable topics for athletes to bring up.
If they’re asking for revenue sharing, it’ll be by sport. Football players will want the football money, MBB players will want the hoops money, and everyone else gets a share of what they can make. Of course, how do you assign BTN money? Will anything shown on BTN claim it makes revenue, so athletes deserve a share? And note that they mention revenue sharing, not profit sharing.
Women’s sports have the opportunity to earn revenue. That should be fine. Title IX is about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Nobody can promise that field hockey will be as popular as football.
I doubt either would support revenue sharing. They can still dominate via NIL, plus keep their revenue.
They might reduce the required number of sports for D-I membership, but not too much because they are trying to shrink the top level. Just having football forces multiple women’s sports for Title IX. Maybe the non-revenues get moved to a no-revenue streaming source from BTN so there’s nothing to share with them.
That’s a legal question. It might mean that. Or they may get called employees first, with unions coming later, and then revenue sharing.
I don’t think they’d try top prevent schools from funding all sports, but some might demand that the revenue sports must be self-supporting. Why punish women’s tennis?
LikeLike
I question the appetite of states and student/parents to fund athletic departments in the new age of semi-pro teams. This is more about the bottom 70% of D1 rather than the SEC/B1G. About half of the 230 D1 athletic departments at public universities get more revenue from mandatory student fees than they get from television. Why should students/parents be forced to support women’s (or men’s) tennis as a condition of attending a state school that their tax dollars are paying for? Typically, these fees are $500-$1000 per year. In the worst cases over 10% of the total tuition/fees is going to subsidize the athletic department. None of this is used for club sports or recreational facilities (those are different fees typically $100-$200 per year if broken out). Even if legal it is morally obscene to tax students to pay for coaches making $1M+.
Over 1/3 of athletic revenue comes from student fees at 27% of D1 public schools, with over 20% of revenue at 42% of the schools. Even Auburn gets 4% of revenue from mandatory student fees. Excluding Rutgers/Maryland (12%; should go down with full shares) Illinois is the worst offender in the B1G with 3%. The ACC and P12 have several schools with a high percentage of revenue from these fees (VA 13%, VT 10%, ASU 10%, UNC 9%, NCSU 8%, Utah 7%). Some of this may be due to better reporting requirements in VA/NC since most schools try to hide these subsidies (what is reported in the article is the minimum). The B12 had 3 schools at 4% but the new G5 invitees ranged from Cincinnati at 0% to UCF at 37%.
At a minimum these athletic departments should be running with no mandatory student fees. The revenue sports need to support any other sports required for legal (Title IX) and regulatory (NCAA D1) reasons. That is why the minimum number of sports may decrease since there are a lot more have nots (<25% of public D1 are P5) than haves, and it will be far easier to change NCAA rules than Title IX. Public schools should trim their sports business to what they can support from TV, tickets, donations, etc. If the trim is announced, like Stanford did, they may get donations to keep some of the programs going. It will at least identify what the donors care about.
I actually expect mandatory fees to increase by another 50%-100% before anything is done about them. It is just too easy for university presidents to increase them.
LikeLike
Little 8,
Athletics are part of the college experience at most schools. The administration has decided that they are important to the students and the school. They have to be paid for somehow. There is pressure to keep tuition down, so they use a separate fee instead (or other revenue sources).
Tax dollars barely pay for anything anymore. They make up a small fraction of the budget of large schools. And most of the coaches at these smaller schools are making much less than $1M. The top coach in the MAC gets $1.2M, and #2 gets $840k. Some in the MAC make less than $500k.
Almost as much of the fee money goes towards scholarships as to coaches and staff. One problem is the NCAA requiring 16 sports to be I-A. Combine that with Title IX, and there are a lot of coaches, scholarships and facilities to pay for in order to play I-A football.
The haves are thinking about raising what it takes to stay in the top level, not drop it. Keeping the number of sports high is one way to create separation without the optics of kicking anyone out. Make them choose to drop down as with the I-A/I-AA split.
It is virtually impossible for a lower-level school to run an AD fully supported by TV, tickets, and donations. Consider D-I Cleveland State. They made about $2.3M in revenue, including less than $205k from ticket sales. They give out only 127.35 scholarships (split among 262 of their 359 athletes), but those cost over $3.7M. They could only support 79 scholarships from what they earn, and that’s with no coaches or staff or facilities. They would have to drop to D-III, and even then I think they would lose money if they played intercollegiate sports.
You are essentially saying that only the P5 should play intercollegiate sports, and all other state schools should only play intramurals and club sports. What sort of blow is that to those schools?
LikeLike
Is it actually a blow? The fundamental reason for universities is education and research. In Canada, the U.K., in fact, nearly everywhere else in the world, college athletics are indeed just intramurals and club sports. If, as in the case of Cleveland St., very few people pay to watch the college athletes, meaning very few people care about Cleveland St. sports, why should Cleveland St. dropping down to Div III be considered a blow?
LikeLike
Bump!
LikeLike
We all have our eyes on UNC and UVA (and maybe Duke right now if required).
UNC is probably the big battleground between the Big Ten and SEC.
Key for Big Ten is to offer a new “ACC quad” in the Big Ten of Maryland, UNC, UVA, Duke to preserve rivalries.
LikeLike
Oops, reply to above.
LikeLike
What will they do if Notre Dame gets the money it wants from NBC, and remains independent? The Big Ten is not going to add three teams. Either they need to add a fourth, or one of the UNC-UVA-Duke trio does not come in.
When the former UNC president was interviewed about potentially leaving the ACC, the major rivalries he mentioned were Duke and N.C. State. The Big Ten won’t take N.C. State, but maybe they stop at UNC+Duke if they are not getting Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I think you take the 3 in 2032 and then have 2-3 years to talk to ND.
If ND turns you down, probably grab Washington or Miami or Ga Tech or VA tech as #20.
I think Washington, Virginia, UNC, Duke should pay for itself but it may be close.
3 largest states not in either Big Ten or SEC. Plenty of large markets there.
Is that worth a move past 18?
Nobody can say for sure right now, so you may be right that it’s just UNC+1 in play.
LikeLike
Only 2 things I feel reasonably confident in saying is ND+1 and UNC+1 make financial sense.
UNC+3 likely depends on the makeup of the 3.
For the SEC, UNC + UVA + Clemson + FSU would probably work easily.
For the Big Ten, it’s harder if you’re replacing Clemson/FSU with Duke +1.
That national football tv value is an issue to justify UNC+3 without the right 3.
LikeLike
“We all have our eyes on UNC and UVA (and maybe Duke right now if required). UNC is probably the big battleground between the Big Ten and SEC.”
Z33k, no offense but I don’t think there is any campaign by the Big Ten to bring in any ACC schools. Frank has already explained that those schools are mummified until 2036.
LikeLike
I mean around 2031-2033.
LikeLike
z33k,
I don’t think that specific quad is key. #4 could be Duke, but it could also be ND, or GT. I struggle to see Miami getting invited, but they would bring access to FL so it’s possible. I also doubt V Tor NCSU are B10 candidates.
LikeLike
Yeah I just mean that’s theoretically how you’d sell UVA and UNC on coming; they’d have a ready made rivalry to renew and yeah I’m not sure what happens with Duke.
It’s hard to say what the value of Duke is; extra visits to NC/Mid-atlantic is nice along with rivalry with UNC especially in basketball, but doubt that’s worth anywhere near $100 million a year.
So question is how or whether to justify it.
LikeLike
Sure you sell UVA and UNC on UMD already being there. And on the strength of B10 lacrosse. And on B10 hoops. The fourth in their quad could be RU if ND isn’t coming. Nobody else wants RU anyway, and being coastal they might in better.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2021/03/duke-unc-ratings-low-msu-michigan-college-basketball/
Their hoops is very valuable, especially that rivalry. The lowest rated version since 2007 still drew 1.87M viewers both times and were tied for the 6th most-watched regular season MBB games last season. #1 was OSU-MI at 2.63M, and #2 was 2.13M. The year before, Duke/UNC drew 4.16M and 2.23M. The B10 was involved in 6 of the top 10 games last year, including 5 of the top 6.
By contrast, last year’s Duke-UNC final four game drew 17.7M viewers. It was the 3rd largest cable MBB game ever (behind 2 title games), and 5th best semifinal on any network in the past 20 years. It beat the Oscars show the previous week. The other semi drew a paltry 11.7M.
But I agree, with UNC bringing the state, Duke brings limited financial value. But their academics are great, so maybe that sweetens the pot (or balances out also getting Miami).
LikeLike
It’s interesting to think about in value terms, a Big Ten with UNC, UVA, Duke, UCLA would have to basically have like most of the top 50 rated games for cbb every year you’d assume.
Would be interesting to see just how much the basketball side of that could potentially be worth…
And I’d assume that kind of league gets like 12-15 bids in some years to the tournament…; just insane to think about…
Could have a run in cbb like what SEC has done in cfb.
LikeLike
The reason why I say this is because there’s potentially a force multiplier effect from basically monopolizing cbb.
Say the Big Ten charges $15 million a year per school for cbb tv.
If you add UNC, UVA, Duke and effectively monopolize the big games in cbb, maybe you could increase that to $25 million per school by making an effective monopoly of big brand cbb.
Or $30 million. Even ESPN would want to get back into that for access to those games and would be willing to pay big.
So yeah who knows but maybe there’s something to be said for trying to go for UNC, UVA, Duke as a trio financially.
An extra $10 million per school in a 20 team Big Ten is $200 million which goes a long way to paying for those additions.
Football drives the bus but a basketball monopoly of big brand games could be something that moves the needle over time.
LikeLike
Only if you can somehow monopolize the postseason too or change the postseason format.
Right now, the MBB regular season just doesn’t matter that much.
LikeLike
MBB regular season doesn’t matter that much, but games that generate >1 million viewers still carry value.
And if you go from owning 40% of those to 70%, you can dramatically increase the price that you charge because you’ve gone from being the largest plurality owner to being a monopoly.
So the prices you charge when you own 40% of 1+ million viewer games might be $15 million per school, but at 70% of 1+ million viewer games, you can charge $25-30 million per school even if you’ve taken on 4 extra schools to do it.
There’s a force multiplier effect from monopolizing the big brand games of cbb.
I think there’s something there that may create a financial windfall from adding UNC, UVA, Duke to a Big Ten with UCLA.
That’s a lot of big brand basketball games in conference play; probably the majority of it, i.e. a potential monopoly could develop.
LikeLike
Monopoly? UK, KU, Louisville, and Cuse would still exist (besides the BE and others) and they’re not joining the B10 under any scenario.
LikeLike
@Richard but who are they playing and how many times can those teams generate 1 million viewership games in their conferences compared to a conference with UNC, UVA, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois, Ohio State, etc.
If you reach a point where Big Ten matchups are generating 70% of the 1 million+ viewership games, that’s basically a point at which the Big Ten can exert monopoly-like power in raising prices on its basketball tv rights.
That’s a point at which you can charge an extra $10-15 million per team than you could before when the 1 million viewership games were more spread out and the Big Ten had <50% of them.
ESPN would have to bid on Big Ten basketball rights, and pretty much everyone else would have to…
LikeLike
Here’s the list of top 10 most watched college MBB games in 2019-2020 (seems to be all games over 2mm):
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2020/03/college-basketball-ratings-end-season-cbs-fox-espn-btn/
I’m more than a little skeptical that you can generate $10mm more per B10 school with your scheme.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about the hidden gem aspect of college basketball, too. I think that one of the best gambits in getting UNC is to tell them Kansas and Duke will get offers (along with Virginia).
A league with Indiana, UCLA, Kansas, Duke, and NC will command whatever price they want from networks. And it will allow the BIG to significantly impact March Madness and the billions it brings in.
If you are a Kansas to the BIG fan, then this is your avenue–use them to convince UNC to join.
LikeLike
Matt,
It’s really hard to see how KU could bring $100M of value to the B10. Their football program is G5 level at best, and CFB is 80-85% of TV revenue. We already have RU, we don’t need to add an even worse team in the plains.
KS is a low population state. KC is a decent market, but not huge (#34 – similar to Columbus or Asheville, NC – the 3rd market in NC). KU hoops is great, but they can’t pay for themselves solely with hoops.
Duke has a slight chance because UNC might ask for them, they are an elite academic school (KU is barely AAU), NC has over 10M residents (KS is less than 3M), and the Duke-UNC hoops rivalry is uniquely valuable for hoops.
UNC isn’t going to make their decision based on KU hoops. They’d also have to play them in all the other sports, and that’s a huge negative.
LikeLike
Yeah, the networks aren’t going to pay even a league with all the top MBB programs (and let’s be honest, the B10 isn’t adding UK, Louisville, or Cuse. . .or Gonzaga) simply any named asking price.
MBB regular season games just don’t draw the eyeballs.
LikeLike
As I said above, SEC people seem pretty confident that they can get UNC, but less confident about Virginia. But it’s going to be 10 years in the future so a lot can change in either direction between now and then so who knows?
LikeLike
Actually, all eyes are on ND right now, and who knows what the landscape will look like in a decade when the ACC starts to break up.
I believe there are positive externalities (network effects) from adding Stanford, Cal, UW, Miami, GTech along with ND. I’d add UVa, UNC, and Duke if possible, sure, but pretty much everyone on that list who isn’t ND isn’t on the same tier as ND.
LikeLike
Sun Belt has a similar provision to deem a member has chosen to withdraw
LikeLike
Maybe some of the lawyers on here could comment. What if a school were able to show that during the GOR discussion Swofford/ACC made a Material Misrepresentation. Would that be a basis for voiding the contract?
LikeLike
It absolutely could be, but it would be a bear to prove that, and what if you lose? No school could be confident about that, and the liability if you’re wrong is in the stratosphere.
LikeLike
Highly doubt any school would ever be willing to allege that given the difficulty of proving the case.
As ESPN has reported, several schools have traveled to the ACC offices to have their lawyers check the GoR language.
Other conferences also likely don’t want to be involved in bailing out a school that tries to challenge it and instead has to pay the ACC $300+ million to leave or in damages.
It’s why the SEC is stating openly that Texas/OU exits from the Big 12 are entirely up to those 2 schools and the Big 12.
It’s why Texas/OU say at every opportunity that they plan to fulfill all of their contractual obligations (including GoR) to the Big 12.
Nobody wants to get sued for tortious interference or anything else.
And no school wants to try to challenge a GoR with 14 years left if it could result in huge financial liability if/when the conference countersues.
LikeLike
Bear in mind, these are sophisticated parties. They had lawyers, and good ones. They could not merely allege that they didn’t realize what they were getting into. It would have to be a material misrepresentation known to Swofford but not to the schools at the time. The odds such a thing exists are pretty low.
LikeLike
The “they talked fancy to us” defense is typically a loser. Everyone was lawyered up, or they should have been.
I deal more with laws and rules, not contracts. The best I can come up with is maybe a North Carolina state judge could say that the ACC bylaws and GoR are against public policy. Not sure if there’s a public policy in NC that allows a state university to get out of a contract in order to make more money, possibly to the detriment of another state (NC State) university.
LikeLike
If ND joins, they’ll likely come in with Stanford. Even if the Irish decide to forestall the inevitable, I don’t believe the B1G is done in the west.
LikeLike
Looks like revenue sharing with athletes could be coming to the B1G
LikeLike
I think you’re right. Actually makes sense, in that it brings some structure to the NIL.
LikeLike
If they share I would prefer it only include post season money from the playoff and tourney. Schools need the regular season money to fund the programs.
I use to be against all of this but when you have Kirby now raking in 11-12million I think it has to happen. Coaching pay in college is now exceeding the NFL in most circumstances.
LikeLike
Using only post season money would mean that if a team does not make a bowl will not have funds to share. Even then many of the bowls really do not make much for the teams. Maybe getting the Sweet 16 will produce a little money.
The function behind sharing is for the players. Telling them that we made a second tier bowl and will not have much money probably will not work so well.
LikeLike
I am suggesting post season money is evenly shared amongst conference members. The conference would evenly distribute to the players. The reality is it won’t lead to big payouts to the players. They aren’t sharing 50% like the NFL.
LikeLike
Kevin,
https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/college-football-head-coach-salaries-kirby-smart-2022-new-contract
No, most CFB head coaches make much less than NFL coaches. You just hear about the few that do make that much, but remember there are 4 times as many I-A coaches as NFL coaches. The average P5 head coach makes $3-4M. For G5 coaches it is less than $2M, often less than $1M.
LikeLike
Doug,
Those are 2 completely separate things. Revenue sharing won’t prevent the current NIL chaos from continuing. Players will still be able to chase NIL deals, they’d just also get a check from revenue sharing.
Maybe the schools will point out how much revenue they are already sharing (facilities, tuition, room and board, coaching, trainers, therapy, tutors, clothing, free advertising, …). In essence, the players are saying the schools should cut other sports, or at least their financial support, so they can get paid even more. Or the schools should stop giving money to the academic side of the school where it helps reduce tuition and fees for students. If it ever happens, they should directly blame the revenue sports players as they announce the cutting of other sports and/or a raise in tuition and fees.
LikeLike
The athletes, like most people, would probably prefer to be paid with money rather than with stuff like a fancy gym/locker room. And only some of them value an education.
LikeLike
This columnist feels strongly that CU should go back to the B12 if they get an offer.
LikeLike
Pingback: A couple of ACC realignment myths you can stop paying attention to. » All Sports Discussion
Some in the twitterverse are reading a lot into how Andrew Marchand phrased this tweet (“If” and “its”). Jason Benetti is in Chicago and also announces MLB, but would’ve been a top option for NBC if they needed a 2nd CFB announcer team (for the “shoulder programming” games).
LikeLike
Not sure if that means NBC is finalizing a deal with the Big Ten or that it’s out of the Big Ten race (or as you’ve noted, reading into too much).
Separately, I’m a White Sox fan, so I see a lot of Jason Benetti. He has also had an increased presence on college football and college basketball on ESPN over the past couple of years (including many Big Ten games). Benetti is an *excellent* announcer and very deserving of increasingly more high profile roles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. He’s gotten several replies/retweets about the confusion, so he may clarify tomorrow.
LikeLike
NBC has not confirmed its broadcast booth for Notre Dame football, at least not that I could find. Mike Tirico has had play by play the last few years, but he is taking over the NFL Sunday Night package from Al Michaels. It is certainly possible for Tirico to call games on consecutive days, especially as ND is only 7 weeks of the season.
LikeLike
Rumors say Jac Collinsworth to replace Tirico, and Jason Garrett to replace Drew Brees. But I haven’t seen anything official either.
LikeLike
Frank, just FYI:
https://twitter.com/theDudeofWV/status/1550670693683138561
LikeLike
How likely is it that VT or any college campus keeps the latest version (though might be older versions somewhere)?
These days due to FOIA requests, many of these types of documents/contracts are kept only at the league office (which is immune to those requests).
Maybe old versions of contracts (like the older ACC GoR) are kept at a random university, I’d imagine only league offices keep the proprietary information.
Just as an example, Rutgers, Maryland and likely Nebraska don’t have their contracts to enter the Big Ten.
Nobody at Maryland or Rutgers can tell you what those documents say unless they check with the Big Ten. Rutgers couldn’t tell the NJ media what their entry deal said.
LikeLike
Since I posted today, I’ve had a couple of people reach out that would know better than me that the ACC bylaws are apparently truly under lock and key at the conference office (e.g. there’s a physical copy in one room, no one can make copies, etc.).
LikeLike
This is what camera phones are for (though they are likely banned from that room).
Someone needs to do a caper film about some fans breaking into conference HQ to get the top secret contracts and expose them to save CFB (Oceans 14?). It’s no worse of a story than half of what Hollywood pumps out, and might be more believable (of course Disney would give them all superpowers).
LikeLike
They told you nonsense. That is not how organizations (individuals) handle contracts.Each school will (must by law) have its own copy, and so will their lawyers. So there are at least 30 or more copies out there somewhere. Access is a different matter.
LikeLike
@bob sykes
That is absolutely *not* true.
NJ media (and DC media) have sent dozens of FOIA requests to Rutgers and Maryland to obtain Big Ten documentation and nothing has turned up.
Rutgers told NJ media they have none of their Big Ten entry contracts and don’t have any documentation on Big Ten constitution/bylaws.
I don’t know who told you that, but none of that is true.
The conferences have learned that the only way to shield their documents from the public is to only keep them at the league offices.
LikeLike
The schools can certainly go and view the documents at any time they wish; if the Rutgers leadership wants to check their entry contract then they must go to Rosemont.
Same for the newer ACC grant of rights; only the ACC league office has that 2nd GoR contract as far as we know.
ESPN has reported that several schools have had their teams of lawyers go to the ACC offices to comb over the GoR language.
None of the schools have the newer ACC GoR contract in their school offices.
LikeLike
FWIW, I do remember that a copy of the ACC’s Constitution and Bylaws were included in the lawsuit Maryland filed against the ACC when the Terps announced they were leaving.
Admittedly, they would be over a dozen years old now, but as far as I know, it is the only time they have ever been made public.
LikeLike
That’s a good catch and probably the only way to obtain them.
LikeLike
I’d imagine also Maryland leaving is partially why the ACC must have become protective of its documents, other reason would have been the flurry of FOIA requests (i.e. newer GoR is only at the ACC offices).
LikeLike
z33k: ” . . . other reason would have been the flurry of FOIA requests . . . ”
Specifically, then Ohio State President Gordon Gee got nailed in a FOIA to U of Texas President Powers about joining the Big Ten back in 2010. It seems everything got “FOIA resistant” after that.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/2010/06/04/big-ten-expansion-e-mails/23995951007/
LikeLike
@Colin
Yeah that’s a good catch.
They’ve succeeded to the extent that FOIA requests to Rutgers and Maryland with respect to the Big Ten have turned up nothing.
LikeLike
Oh, I highly doubt he’ll get it.
But after Newsom’s rant about transparency, it’ll be interesting to see if any officials from ACC-land speak up about why nobody can see the deals trapping state schools in a terrible contract.
Frankly, I think the B10’s lack of transparency is problematic as well. Legal, but problematic. I’d love to see a state government stir things up about these hidden contracts. It’d probably need to be the state where the conference HQ is.
Or maybe the feds will get involved as they keep looking into college athletics. Without an anti-trust exemption, college sports are headed for even more legal issues.
LikeLike
I think you’re right on the transparency aspect being troubling to an extent.
These state universities/institutions have signed away their media rights to conferences and nobody can see the conference documentation unless they go to the league offices.
There is a troubling aspect to that. And there could be anti-trust issues related to the conferences as you mention or the Feds could come poking around the SEC and Big Ten to see what kind of power they have as the biggest conferences in terms of media $.
Like with Rutgers, nobody knows the deal that Rutgers signed to enter the Big Ten, and the same applies to UCLA. Even the current leadership at Rutgers has said they don’t really know what’s on those contracts because an older regime signed them. Obviously they could take a trip to see, but the fact that they would have to is troubling.
UCLA probably has no documentation despite signing some kind of entry deal and perhaps already signing a GoR from 2024 to 2030+ with the Big Ten (which would prevent them from undoing the move to the Big Ten).
Obviously Newsom/UC regents won’t be able to get access to any UCLA-Big Ten contract since they’re all in Rosemont. It isn’t a great thing for the public when so much of this comes off as shadow deals.
LikeLike
I never knew before today that the schools do not have copies of the contracts they signed. It is remarkable to be bound by a set of bylaws, and you don’t even know what they say.
Obviously Newsom/UC regents won’t be able to get access to any UCLA-Big Ten contract since they’re all in Rosemont. It isn’t a great thing for the public when so much of this comes off as shadow deals.
I don’t think it’s widely known that the schools have no copies, since it was news to a number of us on this forum, and we are more plugged into this issue than most.
I have to think the conference is required to grant access to boards of regents. If a school’s own board were not allowed to know what it is committed to, that has to be a problem.
LikeLike
Marc: “I never knew before today that the schools do not have copies of the contracts they signed.”
I believe this began about twelve years ago when people started filing FOIAs against public schools to get copies of contracts and emails for coaches, conferences, etc. Nowadays all of the contracts are on file in some attorney’s office, not at the school, and confidential emails are on private computers like Hillary did.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a fair point re:access.
Nobody knows the access rules, but I’d imagine any oversight boards (Newsom being chancellor in name probably included here) can probably get access to the documents if they head to the Big Ten offices or their lawyers head there.
It’s hard to know because of course none of us know what the constitution/bylaws/rules of the conferences are with respect to documentation access.
I think most of us were shocked when Rutgers/Maryland basically said that they signed all these financial distribution contracts which included hefty borrowing against future distributions and yet didn’t have copies for themselves of all those documents.
Conferences have gotten so tight about controlling information that they stopped allowing documentation to be kept on campuses around 15 years ago…
LikeLike
You can find past copies of the B10 handbook online. The GOR and bylaws are not available, but the handbook covers a lot of the day to day aspects of governance.
Here’s the 2017-18 version:
https://iuhoosiers.com/documents/2018/4/5//2017_18_Big_Ten_Conference_Handbook.pdf?id=27323
I haven’t seen a more recent one, but I haven’t searched deeply.
LikeLike
https://www.barrettsportsmedia.com/2022/07/22/andrew-marchand-its-obvious-espn-is-easing-consumers-into-full-digital-bundle-with-espn-price-hike/
Andrew Marchand says ESPN raising the monthly price of ESPN+ from $7 to $10 is the first step in their plan to eventually eliminate ESPN as a channel and make everyone pay them a lot for streaming.
Marchand added that this was ESPN’s way of trying to plan for that eventual end goal.
“It’s all about testing to see what the consumers are going to pay for,” he said. “It’s getting consumers used to the idea of paying a lot for streaming.”
LikeLike
The goalposts keep moving. TV used to be free (other than owning the set and suffering through the ads). Then, they got us to pay for cable, even in large metro areas where over-the-air reception was fine. Then we started paying for separate packages such as BTN. Then we started paying for streaming: most U.S. households have at least two such services (such as Netflix and Apple TV) in addition to cable.
But there are limits. Warner Brothers Discovery strangled CNN+ in the crib because they didn’t believe a separately paid-for streaming news service could ever be profitable. Not every streaming site is going to succeed, just like the early days of the Internet when not every website succeeded.
It’s a tough line to draw. If every network in my current package were sold à la carte, there are very few I would pay for separately. ESPN’s money-making machine was always dependent on being in basic cable, where everyone paid whether they wanted it or not.
LikeLike
I do not think that the article implied the termination of ESPN as a part of cable packages. It seems as though they are collecting all of the ESPN extras and putting them in ESPN+. That does not preclude general ESPN for those who are not motivated pay for extras.
Here is an “analysis” of the future of ESPN.
https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-million-subscribers-in-2021-10-of-its-overall-subscriber-base/#:~:text=(According%20to%20the%20most%20recent,great%20deal%20for%20sports%20fans.
ESPN lost 8 million more subscribers in 2021, but that still leave 75 million. Projections are that by 2030, ESPN will be down to 50 million basic subscribers.
The attached article, to the extent the analysis is accurate, is also an interesting read with regard to long term college sports rights.
Disney CEO Bob Chapek said … about ESPN’s plans on streaming.
“It (ESPN+) will be the ultimate fan offering. It will appeal to superfans that really love sports, and I think there’s nobody but ESPN who could frankly pull that off.”
The author of the article, Clay Travis, says that Disney has no plan to do this, since it cannot be done. Streaming cannot simply replace ESPN.
Now let me explain the basic math on streaming the models that Disney CEO Bob Chapek says he isn’t ready to share yet.
Right now ESPN makes roughly $5 a month on its average ESPN+ customer. That equates to roughly $1.3 billion a year in revenue. Which sounds like a lot. Until you realize that’s less than 1/8th the revenue ESPN produces off the ESPN channel by itself. In fact, ESPN+ makes less than half of what ESPN pays for Monday Night Football every year under its new deal. (Monday Night Football costs ESPN $2.7 billion a year). Indeed, ESPN makes less on ESPN+ than it pays the NBA every year. (The NBA makes $1.4 billion a year and is going to want a massive increase in its new deal which is up soon.) It’s likely that streaming revenue for ESPN represents substantially less than 1/10th the revenue produced by subscriber fees and advertising dollars across all ESPN cable properties.
So if you combine ESPN’s sports properties both cable and satellite and streaming revenue, it’s likely the company is doing somewhere around $13 billion in sports revenue a year right now. (That’s $9 billion a year in cable and satellite, $2.5 billion a year in advertising and $1.3 billion a year in streaming).
….
Streaming at Disney is losing nearly a billion dollars a quarter.
Okay, you say, but let’s just pretend every single sporting event available on the ESPN channels now was instead available on ESPN+, that you could actually offer that killer sports fan app that CEO Bob Chapek described last week. Well, how do you get to that $13 billion in total revenue? Here’s where the numbers become terrifying on streaming and why Disney isn’t sharing any of them as it relates to ESPN. History has shown us that hard core sports fans willing to pay for a streaming service are a relatively small market.
….
My point here, and the one Chapek acknowledged by refusing to share the numbers, is it’s virtually impossible for ESPN+ to ever come close to producing the revenue that ESPN does now from cable and satellite subscriptions.
LikeLike
So what’s the long-term consequence here? Sports rights fees have peaked, and players/owners/schools will eventually have to accept cutbacks?
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was getting tens of millions of non-sports fans to pay ESPN $8 a month.
LikeLike
Christian: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was getting tens of millions of non-sports fans to pay ESPN $8 a month.”
Well, that ‘trick’ has been done by many other cable stations like the Big Ten Network and a bunch of non-sports programming like Oprah. The Pac-12 Network would love to be as ‘tricky’.
LikeLike
If there’s not enough money being generated by ESPN/FOX/NBC/CBS from subscription fees and advertising dollars against their sports contracts then yes that’s absolutely what will happen in the 2030s.
Nobody knows the future; everyone’s signing these mega deals (NFL getting $13 billion a year once the new sunday ticket package is signed, and down the line, Big Ten/SEC getting >$1 billion a year each, and NBA/MLB/NHL minting billions).
But nobody knows what the dollar intake will be against these contracts.
If the cable bundle drops off faster than expected (say to below 50 million subscribers by 2035) and they struggle to raise the fees there and alternative streaming methods don’t generate enough dollars, then yes there will have to be cutbacks.
Right now everyone’s just hoping that the transition to streaming works out and there will be enough $ generated on streaming to cover cable losses, and that enough viewers will keep watching to keep ad rates up, but nobody actually knows if all the numbers will work.
If the numbers don’t work, then there will be cutbacks to fees and a lot of contracts will have to come down in price.
LikeLike
There still needs to be some context here. ESPN hasn’t just been merely a moneymaker for Disney, but even up until a couple of years ago, it provided more profits than all of the rest of the *entire* Walt Disney Company *combined*. That’s pretty astounding considering how much money Disney makes on Marvel, Star Wars, theme parks, etc.
So, ESPN is still very profitable, but it’s just not at the mountaintop levels that existed previously.
I also wouldn’t put much weight on Disney losing money on streaming as of now – that has been the well-known plan for years as the company has built up Disney+ and its other streaming offerings. Every single other streamer besides Netflix and Amazon (the latter really more because it’s tied to the Prime ordering service) is losing tons of money since they’re all in the capital-intensive startup phase, too.
I’m actually quite bullish on sports rights continuing to go up. We have gone through several decades with different technological changes where people have continuously proclaimed that there’s a sports rights bubble and they can’t go higher… but it still hasn’t ever popped.
The biggest shift in favor of sports (at least to me) is actually the loss of monoculture elsewhere in society. Sports are the only programs that people watch live en masse – AKA if you are in the business of needing to sell commercials, then sports are the *only* category of programming that’s worth anything now.
I’ll have to find the list somewhere, but I recall seeing that out of the top 100 most-watched TV programs in the US in 2021, over 90 (it might have been even around 95) were sporting events. All of the rest were news events (e.g. presidential inauguration coverage, the Oprah interview of Meghan and Harry) with the exception of the post-Super Bowl episode The Equalizer. So, the only scripted program on the top 100 was only there because it followed the biggest sporting event on TV.
While most of those sporting events were NFL games, there were several college football games on that list. Think of it this way: the Big Ten and SEC have multiple games per year that draw higher ratings than ANY regularly scheduled prime time network TV show. Every. Single. One.
The *relative* power of sports on TV has skyrocketed. The only people that argue against it don’t understand comparative statistics. While ratings for sports in a vacuum have gone down overall over the years, what many people aren’t taking into account is that the ratings for everything on TV have absolutely tanked way way WAY faster.
Hence, the demand for sports rights continue to go up and up. As long as there is a market need to be able to reach a large audience of people at the exact same time (as opposed to targeted ads), sports will continue to be valuable because they’ve become the only option to reach that type of audience. There’s no such thing as a monster show like Friends or Seinfeld anymore that would regularly get higher ratings than the NFL. Now, the NFL has so much ratings power that the entire network TV schedule revolves around them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sports (mostly the NFL though some Olympics too) absolutely dominated the top 50:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2021/tv/news/top-rated-shows-2021-ncis-yellowstone-squid-game-1235143671/amp/
Past the top 50, NCIS gets in there too (plus plenty of NFL).
LikeLike
Sports absolutely dominates the top 50 (mostly NFL but some Olympics):
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2021/tv/news/top-rated-shows-2021-ncis-yellowstone-squid-game-1235143671/amp/
Once you get past the top 50, NCIS gets in there too (still plenty of NFL, though)
LikeLike
BTW, what this list tells me is that once both the SEC and B10 expand to 22 schools (SEC with Clemson, FSU, UNC, NCSU, UVa, and VTech, B10 with ND, Stanford, Cal, UW, Miami, and GTech), the B10 and SEC should set up a B10-SEC challenge in both football and basketball.
1 school on both sides may not participate (Iowa has the ISU game; UK has the Louisville game) but all the heavyweights would.
Some of the Challenge games in football would be protected rivalries (UGa-GTech; Miami-FSU, UVa-UMD, heck UIUC-Mizzou).
Would definitely get the B10 plenty of southern exposure besides money. SEC gets plenty of money too.
It would be cool to make the IU-UK game an annual protected Challenge game in MBB too.
LikeLike
Fair set of points Frank.
I guess the question I have is how does everyone else other than ESPN plan to monetize sports.
We can see the Disney/ESPN plan coming into focus: ride ESPN as long as possible and supplement with ESPN+ as a streaming service.
What’s the rest of the major broadcasters’ plans to handle the transition as viewership continues to fade (i.e. casual fans cut the cord and become considerably less likely to watch sports).
Sports will become an ever growing share of the top viewed broadcasts (everything else on broadcast is basically dying or dead besides news) because everything else has comparable/cheaper options on streaming services like Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+/Hulu, Paramount+, Peacock, whatever and streaming services have basically taken the mindshare of scripted/unscripted programming away from television with the optionality it offers (like binging) and less commercials/etc.
I think FOX’s move to dump their studios was a brilliant move in hindsight, the pandemic and rush to streaming by everyone else made it clear that studios were becoming a lot less valuable and the content had become commoditized.
FOX is now just sports + news which is really the only 2 things that real-time viewers watch.
The question to me is more how does everyone else outside of ESPN plan to handle the transition to streaming because that isn’t clear.
LikeLike
Zeek: Everyone else becomes sports and news as well. And infomercials.
Oh, and reality TV shows because they’re cheap.
LikeLike
Which is precisely why Endeavor’s focus shifted so dramatically to live events with its acquisition of the UFC, Prof. Bull riders etc. The entire pitch for It’s successful IPO (even during the pandemic) was that live events are the one sure bet in entertainment. I know I will never convince anyone here that the size of a brand trumps the size of a media market, but it’s true. With streaming, the entire country (and world) is one big media market in search of an intriguing matchup.
LikeLike
https://sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/01/10/Upfront/Ratings.aspx
Richard’s linked list was for primetime telecasts only. It’s even more sports-heavy when you include all telecasts. Sports were 95 of 100, with 75 from the NFL, 11 Olympics, 7 CFB, and 2 MBB. Note no NBA or MLB. Basically the top 100 all got 15M viewers or more (14.97M and 14.94M for #99 and 100).
LikeLike
Because of the Dec31 Semis for 2022, 5 of the 7 from college football were playoff games. The AL-GA SEC championship and OSU-MI were the only non-playoff games to make the cut.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The headline said it, and maybe Marchand said more to that effect in the podcast the article referred to.
I have great faith in big companies to find a way to extract money from streaming customers. Between raising rates as cable competition disappears, and introducing ads, and other things, they will make their billions. Maybe the ad revenue from companies will skyrocket to compensate. But companies always find a way to take every penny they possibly can from customers.
LikeLike
Ad revenues are a key. No one who is watching live college football will turn it off due to adds. Of course, there will be the “get a beer break”, but the network will still be paid.
Netflix is going to start experimenting with adds.
Live sports is the one program that people are least likely to record and come back two hours later or the next day. It not as if many people will want to ignore the college season and then stream in over a couple of weekends.
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Or:
B10 adds ND, Stanford, Cal, UW, UO, UVa, UNC, Duke, GTech, Miami to get to 26.
SEC adds FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VTech, and the AZ schools to get to 22.
But UK (or maybe OU), Iowa, UW, and UO don’t participate in the B10-SEC challenge in football as they face in-state rivals instead.
That still leaves 23 B10 teams and 21 SEC teams. The worst 2 B10 teams face Army instead.
Protected rivalry games:
Week 1: FSU-Miami (Labor Day) & UNC-NCSU
Last week of the season: UGa-GTech & UVa-VTech.
Weeks 2 &3 (kept open by the other 19 B10 and other 17 SEC schools) will feature the rest of the B10-SEC Challenge games.
It would still be a heckuva TV package to sell. I’d say worth $200-300mm.
LikeLike
Oh wait, Mizzou-UIUC in Week 1 too. So 16 B10-SEC Challenge games in weeks 2 and 3.
LikeLike
THE B1G LEAGUE (by Dani Santa Monica)
-West Pod:
USC/UCLA,/WA
OR/STANFORD/CAL
-Midwest Pod:
NEB/WIS/MINN
ILL/NW/IOWA
-Great Lake Pod:
UofM/tOSU/ND
MSU/PU/IND
-East Pod
PENN ST/UNC/DUKE
MARYAND/MIAMI/RU
(W/Kansas for BB only. Sorry CAL, no hoops for you 😇)
…I seem it worthy!
LikeLike
(DEEM)
LikeLike
…Also, if you guys want UVA in the B1G LEAGUE, it’s up to you to kick Rutgers out. I don’t want that on my conscience!!! -Demz da’ rules!
LikeLike
Why Rutgers? I will guarantee that RU brings more money to the table than, let’s say Purdue. Is anyone going to kick Purdue out?
By the way, the B1G could expect a multi-billion dollar suit if RU, Purdue, UMd other other schools who have acted in reliance, were dispensed with. How many hundreds of millions are “bottom” sports universities in B1G investing in based on their contractual rights. How about U Minnesota? I have heard them mentioned as dispensable in the future Super League.
As an aside, if RU were actually dropped, I could see enormous political pressure on both the NJ and NYC cable channels to totally drop the B1G network, not only at in network rates, but in toto. Only somewhere between 5 and 7.5 million TV families involved. No biggie.
To never have been invited to join the party is one thing. To get kicked out is entirely another matter.
NJ has a population of 9 million people, including hundreds of thousand of RU alums and students, many of whom are in key political positions in state. Many of the alums, family and friends probably do not give a d@mn about RU sports or the B1G, but would take the insult very personally. Don’t diss their state.
You’re talking about Jersey. We do not take that crap from anyone. The state walks aground with a chip its collective shoulders and dares anyone to try and knock it off. Remember, Benjamin Franklin described NJ as a beer barrel open at both ends (NYC and Philly). That insult still stands.
We get even. By the way, if you suddenly feel like you are now being followed, do not worry about it. It is your imagination.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The B10 won’t kick anyone out. What could theoretically happen is that some B10 schools get left behind in the formation of a football superleague. If/when CFB reaches that level of NFL lite, the superleague will pick the set of schools they feel will make the most money as a group.
Schools like PU would be at risk. Today’s RU would be at risk because of how terrible they’ve been since joining the B10. But if Schiano (and whoever follows him) can get them to be mediocre or better, that would make a big difference. Then the NYC/NJ market becomes a more meaningful factor.
A superleague can’t take everyone and still make a big jump in revenue. Even if they go to 48 teams, some of the P5 won’t make it.
LikeLike
Wow, get this guy down to central casting. Seriously, I appreciate the passion. Fact is, I wouldn’t kick Rutgers out even if I had the chance. After 200 years, I still think there’s ‘diamond-in-the-rough’ potential there, both athletically and in regard to viewership. If you want to be offended, it should be in regard to your home grown talent choosing to go elsewhere. As for UVA, it’s an incredible institution, but so is Duke, and I think the B1G might need the latter to reel in UNC. Whether the SEC would take Miami simply to keep the B1G out of FLA, I don’t know, but gaining a foothold in a talent rich environment with a still-potent brand that has incredible upside, would be coup for the conference. Have a great day Bernie. -You can even keep the cannoli!
LikeLike
Rutgers is extremely valuable.
Nobody is kicking out Rutgers.
Location, location, location.
You got a school sitting in the NYC media market and it’s got hundreds of thousands of alums/fans sitting in the NYC and Philly media markets.
That’s straight up money.
Cable isn’t going to die anytime soon and Rutgers will continue to provide those markets to the conference.
LikeLike
I can see a 24-member maximum for each conference (for men’s and women’s hoops, a 24-game league schedule — home-and-home against one permanent rival, single games against the other 22), but 26 is simply too unwieldy.
My B1G (a non-divisional 24-member unit for football):
ATLANTIC: Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke or Georgia Tech
CENTRAL: Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana, Notre Dame. Purdue
MIDWEST: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
PACIFIC: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA
My 20-member, non-divisional football SEC:
ATLANTIC: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia
GULF COAST: Florida State, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State*
SOUTHERN: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Arkansas
WESTERN: Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Mississippi*
*Mississippi State and Mississippi would swap divisions every two years and be an annual home-and-home.
LikeLike
To my surprise, the bookies actually have odds on the next schools to join the Big Ten and SEC. UNC to the Big Ten isn’t considered very likely.
https://www.si.com/college/oregon/history/oregon-listed-among-schools-with-highest-odds-to-accept-big-ten-invites#:~:text=News-,Oregon%20Listed%20Among%20Schools%20With%20Highest%20Odds%20to%20Accept%20Big,join%20the%20new%20Big%20Ten.&text=Ever%20since%20the%20bombshell%20announcement,a%20big%20game%20of%20monopoly.
LikeLike
Some of the schools on the B10 list are really silly. Though the bookies probably are aware that no ACC school will join the B10 in 2022 (those odds pay out only if a school joins in 2022).
And UW really should be listed above UO.
LikeLike
Heard one of the Vegas bookers say the reason the odds were set like that is because they’re just the most popular schools people like to bet on the past couple of years outside of some potentially legit choices like ND, Oregon, Washington to the Big Ten or Clemson, FSU, Miami to the SEC…
Like Cincinnati and Oklahoma State have been good at cfb past few years so they’re more likely to get money on them than schools that are actually more likely to get bet on; Kansas just comes up a lot in the discussions as an AAU school near the Big Ten with a good basketball brand, etc….
They’re basically taking the “dumb money” for a ride with most of those choices just being schools that are currently good at the 2 money sports (Baylor, Kansas, Cincy, OkSU etc.).
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-big-12
John Canzano mailbag.
Q: What are the chances of unequal revenue sharing? — @hmckee53
A: An imbalanced split of media revenue feels like it is very much on the table. Minimally, it’s being discussed. I suspect Washington, Arizona, Stanford, Cal and ASU feel entitled to larger than an equal share because of their TV markets. I also think Oregon believes its brand merits additional compensation. They all have leverage right now.
…
Q: Amazon’s relationship with CBS/Paramount+ is intriguing. There’s a possible avenue to network-TV there, which I assume is still important. Despite the social media nonsense (I HAVE SOURCES) why would there be any other movement before other outlets can get involved after Aug 4? — @SteinerLine36
A: ESPN and Fox are in an exclusive, 30-day negotiating period with the Pac-12 that ends Aug. 4. There’s incentive for ESPN, particularly, to come with a strong Tier 1 offer and get the primary deal done without bidding against others. But I’d expect the streaming part of this could take additional time because the Pac-12 would want to talk with Amazon, Apple, etc. and let the market weigh in.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gets-creative-as-things
What the P12 might get in their new deal.
The original projection for the Pac-12’s new media rights deal was $500 million a year. But that included 5.7 million Southern California TV households as part of the calculus. Split a dozen ways, it worked out to $41.6 million a year, per school.
The new projection: $300 million a year.
Split only 10 ways, that’s only $30 million each annually. It’s a 28 percent reduction. I’m being told that Kliavkoff is determined to be creative and claw back toward the $40 million-a-year distribution threshold.
Could ESPN+ be the answer?
Bob Thompson, the former president of Fox Sports Networks, offered some insight on how that arrangement might work.
“My understanding of the way it works at ESPN is that there’s a budget for the network and then also a budget for ESPN+,” Thompson said. “ So if ESPN+ got a significant chunk of Pac-12 product it could be used to justify higher payment by combining money from the two buckets.”
Could a “loose partnership” with the ACC and some creative thinking with ESPN help make that happen? One current Pac-12 athletic director said on Thursday, “We could potentially give ESPN+ the best content they ever had.”
The conference coaches might not love the limited exposure that comes with streaming games on ESPN+ or even Apple TV+, but the tradeoff could be millions more in funding. Kliavkoff has to go where other conferences haven’t to find new revenue. There will be concessions weighed. Let’s face it: The conference just endured a decade of limited distribution on the Pac-12 Networks and is used to it.
Thompson said, “Still think $40 million per school is a stretch unless they’re going to gut the Pac-12 Networks of all their football and basketball product.”
LikeLike
To that last part… why wouldn’t they gut the Pac-12 Networks at this point?
It was a disaster (around 13 million subs at the moment) and has lost the South California markets which is basically 3-4 million of those subs.
Figuring out how to resolve the Pac-12 Networks into some form of national distribution (either merge it with the ACC somehow or ESPN+ or Amazon Prime or Apple TV+ or whatever) should absolutely be on the table.
Even if USC and UCLA had stayed there wouldn’t have been a reason to keep it as is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
z33k,
Agreed. They have nothing to lose by gutting the P12N. ESPN+ (or any other streamer) would be much better exposure. They should be willing to sell all of that to Apple or Amazon for big money.
I think people tend to forget that the P12 essentially has gotten no value out of all the games they put on P12N. Their payout should jump several million if they can get fair market streaming value for them, let alone if any network wants them. So while $40M might be a stretch, $35M per school sounds reasonable.
LikeLike
Yeah they’re basically extracting around $2.5 million per school from the Pac-12 Networks as it is.
Any streamer would give them >$5 million for that at least. Maybe they can push that to $7-8 million per school if Apple/Amazon bid against ESPN+ to toss that all onto streaming.
Hard to see any reason against it.
More exposure and more money; sure they lose the “100% ownership” that Scott and some of their presidents always promoted, but 100% ownership of something nobody watches is useless unless you’re getting paid.
Maybe they don’t get that many viewers on Apple TV+ but Apple would absolutely give them a much bigger payday for the consolation of that…
If they want more exposure than Apple TV+, take a likely cheaper deal with ESPN+ or Amazon Prime that would still probably be at least double what they’re getting now…
Either way, there wasn’t a reason to keep it before USC/UCLA left and now it’s even harder to justify.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2022/07/hotline-mailbag-options-if-the-pac-12-raids-the-big-12-the-apple-12-conference/
Jon Wilner’s mailbag. I skipped other questions. I think his last answer is wrong – the $75M and $100M per school estimates do not include an expanded CFP. Everything I’ve seen is stating that just for media rights.
Assuming the Pac-12 and ESPN don’t reach agreement during the 30-day exclusive negotiating window, has there been any indication that NBC or CBS have interest in negotiations? — @Polymorphic1019
The Hotline agrees with your assumption:
At this stage of the process, there is no reason for ESPN or Fox to make an offer lucrative enough that the Pac-12 signs on the bottom line in the next few weeks. (The 30-day window expires in early August.)
Instead, we expect Kliavkoff to take the conference’s rights to the open market — a process that could take months. (It could very well end with ESPN making the best offer, but why would the network make a move now, effectively bidding against itself.)
I haven’t seen, heard or read anything to suggest NBC or CBS would be interested in a substantial piece of the Pac-12’s inventory. Maybe one of them grabs a sub-package, but that would be it.
…
With the growing gap in media revenue with the Big Ten and SEC, what are the chances the Pac-12 pursues ancillary revenue streams such as jersey patches or outright selling the name of the league to a sponsor? How creative will the conference get? — Ryan Burrows
As creative as possible.
I expect Kliavkoff to present the university presidents and chancellors with some options that would have been unthinkable, and impossible, a few years ago.
But the bosses are from the world of higher education, where incremental change is typically preferred. Would they accept a new world order and approve measures — for example: alliances with gaming companies — that run counter to traditional norms of college athletics?
As we have said repeatedly, Pac-12 survival depends, first and foremost, on strong leadership at the very top of the conference. Sometimes, leaders must take risks.
How does the Apple-12 Conference sound?
After all, the Pac-12 already has the infrastructure — thanks to the cutting-edge technology used by the networks — that would be necessary for Apple to buy and produce everything.
/b>What are the odds ESPN goes all in on Notre Dame, makes it the king of a new conference and poaches the best from the ACC and Pac-12 to form a third super-league? Chances from 1 to 100? — @TomeiTyler
Zero, but the question is worthwhile for the ground it covers.
First, the ACC schools are locked into a Grant of Rights agreement that runs through the 2036 season, so it’s extremely unlikely that any “poaching” of the premier teams would take place.
Second, we cannot envision a scenario in which Notre Dame joins a conference that’s not the Big Ten. The combination of potential revenue and geographic alignment, with so many Irish alums in Chicago, render all other options remote.
And for what it’s worth, the Hotline believes the Irish will remain an Independent through their next contract cycle. That, in turn, will keep the Big Ten from expanding again in a few years.
The Irish will only feel compelled to join a conference if access to the 12-team College Football Playoff is structured in a manner that makes the independent path untenable.
…
Is it possible that people are overestimating the value of the Big Ten’s new media rights deal? — @morganloewcbs5
Yes, sure. But it’s also possible people are underestimating the value of the 16-team league that stretches from coast to coast.
Our understanding is each school will receive at least $75 million at the start of the contract (in the 2023-24 sports cycle), with the annual payments growing to more than $100 million in the 2030s.
Of course, that includes a significant bump from the expanded CFP.
LikeLike
My understanding was $75mm/school for the non-BTN TV deals and $100mm/school all-in, with both those numbers being the average over the next contract.
LikeLike
If you’re talking $100M in 2024, I agree that is an all-in number. But I’m not sure if most people tried to put an accurate value on the expanded CFP when throwing that number out there.
He referred to $100M in the 2030s, which to me is the natural escalation of the contract over a decade from $75 in 2024.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34277361/acc-standing-pat-now-amid-chaos-college-football-realignment
As much as fans dislike the concept, it sounds like both the ACC and P12 are seriously considering unequal revenue distribution to keep schools happy.
As for the uneven revenue distribution to help keep some of the bigger, brand-name schools happy, this is an idea that has been floated since before realignment, but will now be pursued as an option that will be more seriously considered.
Once staunchly against an unbalanced revenue distribution, Phillips said he’s more open to the idea now, as difficult circumstances dictate hard choices. But he said it wouldn’t be his first option.
One ACC athletic director said he thought the idea had more traction than in years past, but said the league had not discussed details of any specific plan on how to divvy up dollars. While the AD was unsure if any plan could garner enough votes, one coach who’d previously been averse to the idea said he’d be open to it — if the revenue payouts were based on on-field success.
LikeLike
I’m still skeptical that they can come out with a formula that works best for the schools that will be the most wanted, but we shall see I guess.
Giving out a bigger share of football and basketball postseason money to the schools that advance there is probably the most obvious solution but it’s hard whenever you go that route.
LikeLike
And it’s not clear you can really close the gap in any significant way compared to the negativity around that discussion.
Giving Clemson, North Carolina, etc. an extra few million from their postseason runs in the major sports is nice, but is that closing a $50-70 million gap?
I just don’t see it, and whenever people suggest unequal revenue sharing in those types of cases it’s a hail mary to try to hold things together.
LikeLike
It’s a tough fine line. If it’s *too* unequal towards the top teams, then that creates a situation where the lower tier schools fall even further behind x which then drags down the overall league even further and then those top teams are even *more* motivated to eventually leave.
I’ve been reading “The Club” about the formation of the English Premier League and it’s pretty remarkable how the way the top teams broke away from the legacy Football Association in order to maximize TV money and consolidate power along with turning very local/regional interests into a national/international enterprise is *very* similar to conference realignment.
In any event, the Premier League has a general revenue distribution structure of approximately 50% provided equally to all clubs, 25% based on the final standings and 25% based on TV appearances.
To the extent that there is unequal revenue sharing, that seems to be a decent framework. The TV appearances are going to be biased towards the top name brands, so that’s a way to keep them happy. However, a pure performance portion also provides an additional incentive to all schools regardless of legacy brand name.
LikeLike
I believe the B12’s formula was similar in that half the TV revenue was split equally, and half was based on TV appearances. In the P10, it was 40.5% of TV revenue split equally and 59.5% based on TV appearances.
LikeLike
Yeah I can imagine it coming about in all leagues at some point, but just going to be curious to see how it’d come about; I can’t really see the SEC or Big Ten falling dramatically behind one another and needing to do it.
LikeLike
z33k,
Agreed, it’s hard to see how it could happen within the B10 and SEC. My only thought would be if a football-only superleague concept was created where the top brands of each conference get in, so there would be 2 tiers of payouts.
LikeLike
The P12 formula for splitting TV revenue had a component that based the amount to be split on the network the broadcast was on (National more than regional, ABC/ESPN more than ESPN2, ESPNU etc.). However, the P12 will have a problem implementing this now. Only a very strong GOR is likely to keep them together. Most of the usual suspects mentioned for giving up revenue are the schools the B12 wants.
LikeLike
z33k,
You can’t close the gap entirely that way. But just making the effort can go a ways to reducing negative feelings. USC and UT got angry because they were falling behind and the conferences had imposed equal sharing. If they were still falling behind, but by less than OrSU or KSU were, they wouldn’t have been as upset.
The gap being $50M in part depends on the expanded CFP and the P2 dominating the money.
2019 conference payouts (pre-COVID):
B10 – $55.6M
SEC – $45.3M
B12 – $40M (average)
P12 – $32.3M
ACC – $32M (average)
That’s a $20M gap or less.
The B10 and SEC are obviously climbing a lot soon, and the B12 and P12 may drop or gain a little. The ACC is slowly growing. So the gap may grow to $50M.
But $70-79M per conference was from the CFP ($6-8M per school roughly). $12-35M per P5 conference was earned in the NCAA tournament ($1-3M per school). An expanded CFP should pay a lot more, so how that money is split will be important. If the P5 get roughly equal shares again, then the gap is tolerable because the floor gets raised. If the split favors the P2, then it exacerbates the existing problem.
So let’s say the B10 and SEC are getting $100M all in after expanding the CFP. By then the ACC will be up to $40M at least (contract escalation), plus any extra CFP money they get. So they may be up to $50M.
To get Clemson, FSU, and UNC to $80M each, the ACC only needs to find $90M. If everyone else gives up $8.2M on average (so they get $41.8M), they’re there. And if those 3 will stay, so will everyone else. And maybe you can even attract UW and UO with $60M per year. That hurts the P12, which boosts the ACC, and ESPN might pay a touch more for the additions.
Likewise, the P12 could make UW and UO less likely to leave but paying them more so the B12 and ACC don’t look as attractive. They can’t stop the B10 or SEC from inviting schools, but they can make the decision to leave harder.
LikeLike
The P10 and B12 survived for long periods with unequal revenue. They didn’t lose teams until after they switched to equal revenue sharing (the big brands were upset from day 1).
The postseason money is the low hanging fruit. They also used to base it on TV appearances. That doesn’t work in a world where all game are on TV, but it could be based on games on each tier/network. They could also factor in markets and brands if they so choose.
Having an objective metric works best, because then schools can’t complain about bias inside the conference.
Have formulas for football and MBB, then tell the schools to go earn it. If FSU can’t win games, they probably don’t deserve an outsized share of revenue. But they could use some sort of TV viewership metric (average over the season?) to give weight to fan base size and markets as well.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s just that it sort of becomes a double edged sword.
Say a “king” (or program that sees itself as a king) struggles for 5-6 years (say FSU has mostly 7-8 win seasons from 2026-2032 and is like #7 on revenue in the ACC), does that make it more likely that they try to get the heck out of the ACC?
I sort of feel like some of these schools have to be careful what they wish for with unequal revenue sharing.
It sounds great until you’re FSU and a coaching hire doesn’t work and you fall even further behind on revenue than you expected.
But for a program like Clemson that’s operating at a historical peak (top 3-4 in the country for a number of years), it’s a huge incentive.
Here’s the Big 12’s 2008-2009 revenue distribution:
1. Oklahoma, $12,209,800
2. Texas, $11,783,807
3. Kansas, $11,494,441
4. Missouri, $10,449,437
5. Texas A&M, $10,180,582
6. Oklahoma State, $10,026,603
7. Colorado, $9,767,426
8. Nebraska, $9,728,502
9. Texas Tech, $9,195,931
10. Baylor, $9,068,351
11. Iowa State, $8,913,045
12. Kansas State, $8,374,959
It did what it was intended to do (half split equally, half based on TV appearances including non-con/Big 12 title game).
At the same time, Nebraska was struggling to get on national TV at times due to the less appealing schedule of its division and coming off of the Callahan years.
Nebraska was more typically around ~5th in the conference in revenue but had years like that under their unequall formula.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s definitely as risk. But it’d be hard for FSU to complain publicly. Their brand would keep getting them TV appearances for a while. If even that isn’t enough to carry them anymore, then they probably don’t deserve more.
LikeLike
I agree 100% with you Brian, but as far as realignment goes, schools are weighed based on potential so it’s hard to see how any of this helps prevent realignment.
Rutgers for example athletically was all potential: it’s located in the NYC market and you have 350-400k alums living in 2 giant media markets NYC and Philly which account for the entirety of the state.
FSU can be down the next 5-7 years but it’s still the 2nd most prominent school in Florida as far as football brand goes with reach that covers the whole state.
It’s like Texas A&M more than anything; the SEC wasn’t weighing its past but rather its future. They had mostly 4-9 win seasons before entering the SEC.
But the 2nd most prominent school in Texas means potential, and we already know FSU’s had incredible top-end runs with a couple national championships over the last 30 years.
Nobody wants to hear it but giving money to schools based on how valuable they are in realignment is probably the only solution, but that’s a whole different can of worms if they aren’t executing on the field (see USC).
LikeLike
I don’t know that it can prevent realignment, but it can slow it down.
If the gap is “only” $20M ($100M vs $80M), would FSU really feel the need to move? They know they’ll win even less in the SEC, and be little brother to UF. In the ACC they can get on a Clemson-like run and make the CFP a lot. Same for Clemson. And UNC would call it close enough that they can stay in the conference they started and dominated (in MBB) and prefer to any other home. If USC was that close, they would’ve stayed in the P12. Certainly UCLA would have. UT probably would’ve left no matter what, and OU with them.
LikeLike
Nebraska was the leading proponent of the unequal split when it was implemented. It paid off in the early years but bit them later. NE and MO were left out of the P16 that was floated before they went to the B1G.
No amount of $$ would have kept Texas in the B12. They have enough cash. Texas was losing the recruiting battles with A&M (and to a lesser extent other SEC schools) due to perceived lack of exposure, not playing the best schools, etc. The extra $$ at the SEC is just a bonus. NIL will benefit both Texas and A&M in the SEC due to a lot of rich boosters. I saw a complaint from Saban toward A&M about that already.
LikeLike
Regarding Saban’s complaint about Texas A&M. The top recruit in NJ has been a heavy Rutgers lean for two years. He has close ties with the program and has close friends playing there.
Very recently TAMU is in the picture and believed to be the favorite. It is fairly public knowledge that he has been promised big NIL money if he goes to TAMU.
He has absolutely no connections with TAMU, but money talks.
He will be announcing today.
It that sudden interest in TAMU does not corroborated Sabin’s complaints, I do not know what will.
LikeLike
I think Texas and Oklahoma were leaving the Big 12 no matter what. The conference is a Frankenstein beast and didn’t have generations of history. UT had already shown—repeatedly—that it was open to considering better offers, and so were the others.
Even before TX and OU left, the conference had already lost a third of the original twelve and could have lost more. Does anyone doubt that Kansas wanted a Big Ten invitation and would have readily accepted it? That they stayed in the Big XII was not because of any love for the conference, but simply because the better offer was not forthcoming.
The USC/UCLA situation is different. Unlike TX/OK, they had generations of history with their conference mates. To join the Big Ten, they are taking on a lot of logistical inconvenience, mostly just for money. There is perhaps a scenario where the Pac-12 payout, while never matching the Big Ten, was good enough to stay.
LikeLike
How much do you weigh payout against factors like exposure and competitors entering their market?
Yes the decision was primarily financial, but there were 2 other factors that also loomed huge.
1) Lack of exposure in the Pac-12 which was getting bad tv windows (good for tv money in a relative sense because those windows lack content, bad for East/Central time zone exposure) and falling further behind in terms of prominence compared to other leagues especially the SEC/Big Ten.
2) NFL adding 2 teams to that market (along with Ballmer buying Clippers). That in my mind is an understated factor; yes the NFL has dabbled in LA at times, but when you add the first really serious thrust into that market with the SOFI colossus and the NFL moving its media hq to that huge mixed development site, you get the feeling that this is really the first time that the NFL is seriously trying to win over the LA market.
Add in Ballmer buying the Clippers and dumping tons of money into them to build their brand with a huge new arena coming, and you have 3 major competitors (well Chargers are never going to be what the Rams will be unless they win a ton and are already behind with the Rams winning a home field Super Bowl).
To me the Big Ten move was obvious even if the payout was only a 50% increase (say $60 million in the Pac-12 compared to $90 million in the Big Ten).
USC/UCLA in the Big Ten gets them much more prominence nationally and locally. To LA locals, match ups with teams that have brands that matter is a big deal that can’t be discounted.
If you didn’t attend a Pac-12 or Big Ten school, matchups against Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State should matter more than most of the matchups in the Pac-12 outside of that local USC-UCLA rivalry (which is coming along anyway).
LikeLike
I would have thought all that West Coast history would matter to the Trojans but note that they had threatened to leave the Pac decades ago if they didn’t get their way (over some money issue). Like the B12, the Pac has always been very unbalanced with 1-2 schools having the brands, best recruiting grounds, and by far the biggest market in the conference.
LikeLike
This article on SeekingAlpha is about Apple over-paying for sports rights: link.
SeekingAlpha is an investment site, so the article is written from the perspective of whether you should invest in the stock. However, I think the principles are relevant here. Apple TV is still fairly young, and it needs content. This could lead them to pay more than other networks would.
LikeLike
“This article on SeekingAlpha is about Apple over-paying for sports rights”
$2 billion for the media rights to six years of women’s soccer? These people are either woke or deranged.
LikeLike
Huh? The UEFA Champions League they are referring to is the men’s soccer competition that draws huge global viewership.
LikeLike
To build on this, the (men’s) 2021 UEFA Champions League final had a global TV audience of about 700mm, or roughly 6 times the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
It’s Apple, the largest corporation in the world.
They can buy FOX with their quarterly profit and have money to spare.
They have nearly 900 million subscribers to their subscription services along with all the phones they sell.
$2 billion is like 4 days of profit to them.
LikeLike
That’s for sure. With Apple it’s never a question of affording it, but of not wanting to be wrong.
LikeLike
I feel like Apple is more interested in sports being used for additional a la carte subscriptions – see the MLS deal and their heavy interest in NFL Sunday Ticket – more than committing to sports on the regular Apple TV+ service itself. The Friday night MLB package that they started this year seems to be just dipping their toes in on that front.
Amazon, on the other hand, looks like they’re approaching sports more like a main line linear TV network, which sort of makes sense since Amazon Prime Video is much more ubiquitous in household numbers. The NFL Thursday Night package and their Yankees games in the NYC market represent top line marquee brands where they’re getting exclusive games at a large scale. It doesn’t surprise me that Amazon seems to be heavy in the talks to get a piece of the Big Ten rights. As I’ve heard elsewhere, everyone from ESPN/ESPN+ to CBS/Paramount+ to NBC/Peacock is requiring some sort of streaming piece in each Big Ten bid, which makes Amazon actually look favorable by comparison in terms of money and potential household reach. It’s not so much that the Big Ten would take games off of ABC/CBS/NBC to send to Amazon, but rather comparing Amazon to ESPN+/Paramount+/Peacock.
LikeLike
Frank,
That doesn’t mean much. Peacock live streams all the NBC games, plus exclusively streamed the spring game. It also got 1 OOC game last year (Peacock does not get a game this year).
There’s a big difference between wanting to also stream the games they broadcast, and wanting a package of games that will only be streamed. Amazon can only do the latter, but all the networks may only be asking for the former (since BTN already gets spring games). Or maybe they also want an OOC game or two (can’t get 1 from everyone in 3-4 weeks).
LikeLike
To this point I think the industry has really admired their restraint. Instead of partaking in the content gold rush that, let’s face it,, has created a mountain of content too few people want to watch, they have cultivated a stable of water-cooler darlings and a hit in Ted Lasso. A quality over quantity approach reminiscent of early HBO. The Netflix collapse has made Wall St jumpy, but I think they’re taking the same reasoned approach with their live sports investments. What better way to attract streamer-weary consumers to your nascent service than a global magnet like soccer, and a domestic obsession like the NFL. Once upon a time everyone thought Ari wildly overpaid for the UFC. Five years later it’s in the black and printing money. Apple knows exactly what they’re doing.
LikeLike
Apple, with their immense war chest, can afford high start-up costs, as long as they believe the investment will ultimately be justified. Nobody hits a home run in every at-bat, but Apple is probably in a position to take risks others would not. They also have a track record of getting these bets right far more often than not.
This is why I suspect there will be college football on Apple, even if it inconveniences fans who must pay for yet another service. For the right package, Apple will pay more than almost anyone else would.
LikeLike
I’ve always felt that, if any streamer was going to go all in on a B1G package, it would be Apple. Having overheard two seemingly legit execs talk up an Amazon/B1G deal has me second guessing. 😕 I ‘m eager to see how this all unfolds.
LikeLike
As Brian mentioned the problem is exposure.
The Big Ten and others that can get exposure at premium rates (i.e. deals on broadcast at those premium rates) will place a priority on that.
If you can’t get the exposure at that rate, then it’s worth considering throwing it to Apple for the most money possible even though TV+ exposure will be arguably the lowest of the bidders.
That’s the situation the Pac-12 finds itself in and it’s why Apple TV+ buying the Pac-12 Networks rights is a possibility given the Pac-12 Networks only has 13 million subscribers (before USC/UCLA leave with the market that has 3-4 million of those subs).
At that point, give the rights to Apple TV+ for 3x the payout that the Pac-12 Networks is giving because you have low exposure anyways.
LikeLike
Yeah, no amount of money is going to get Apple or Amazon one of the prime B1G packages this go ’round.
LikeLike
I suppose it depends on what “prime” means. Amazon may pay as much as CBS or NBC to get the 4th pick of B10 games each week (which in the expanded B10 will usually still be a pretty good matchup).
LikeLike
If you want to really get into the weeds, one reason I’m so bullish on Apple TV is their recent content deal with Skydance Studios (Dave Ellison’s passion project). A personal favorite of mine which, after a rough start, are now churning out hits including Top Gun Maverick (w/Paramount), and REACHER for Amazon. They even (wisely) hired John Lasseter (Pixar) after his #Metoo ousting from Disney! -‘Woke’ they are not, 😂 yet Apple loves their hit/miss ratio and are going to benefit from it. Good for them.
LikeLike
The mega cap tech companies are playing a different game.
They have such enormous businesses that dabbling in content is a small bolt-on business to them.
Apple buys content pretty judiciously but can afford to miss on everything because their bundle is so powerful (~900 million subscribers to their subscription services in aggregate).
It’s easy when you print $25-30 billion a quarter in profits on average; that’s an entirely different scale. Disney is worth around 6 quarters of Apple’s quarterly profit. Fox is worth less than a quarter.
Amazon is the same (as is Google), getting into businesses like music, tv, etc. are just bolt ons to their main business/bundle.
It’s a different game at their scale. Amazon has >200 million Prime subscribers but has all sorts of other things attached to Prime compared to something like Netflix or any other streaming service. The same is true of Apple where TV+ is just one tiny part of their massive sub business.
LikeLike
So your point is a 2.5 trillion dollar company can afford all the content they want? -You don’t say! I assure you their content officers lose just as much sleep over making poor decisions as every other executive in the Apple ecosystem.
LikeLike
It’s everybody else that should be losing sleep.
I posted above, but I’m not sure anybody except Disney/ESPN has dedicated future strategies for how they’re going to make things work out and even there I’m not sure they can keep up financially if the mega cap tech try to push the envelope and blow up the cable/pay tv bundle by overbidding for sports.
In 30 or 40 years, it’s really easy to imagine sports mostly just being on ESPN+, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime, and YouTube Premium.
Maybe Microsoft jumps in by buying FOX for $20-25 billion (chump change to them) and merging it with their XBOX Game Pass into some kind of media subscription bundle.
I don’t see how CBS, NBC, and even FOX can keep up financially if the big tech companies try to snag all the rights later on; or maybe the mega cap techs just buy the broadcasters, it wouldn’t cost all that much.
FOX is worth $20 billion as a corporation but just the broadcast channel would probably be $8-10 billion. Same goes for CBS or NBC. Those are tiny numbers at the scale the tech co’s work with…
LikeLike
z33k,
I think the big tech streamers will eventually buy the networks so they can offer bundles like Disney’s.
LikeLike
Marc,
I have no opinion of their investing advice, but I’m not sure the analysis of Apple’s move into sports streaming is entirely correct. Unlike other sectors where you can build from the ground up, I’m not sure that approach would work for Apple in sports streaming. I think they do need to overbid for certain rights to get the rights holders to be willing to move large amounts of content to streaming. Other rights they may have to overbid in order to win – rights holders often choose not to take the highest bid if they don’t think the exposure is sufficient.
Whether getting into sports streaming is the correct decision or not I leave to the experts, but I think Apple’s approach to doing it makes some sense.
LikeLike
As somebody who spends most of his days on valuation of businesses, I don’t agree with much in that article.
Sure you can make the argument that they’re overpaying in the short-term (and have to in order to secure rights given the relative lack of exposure on Apple TV+ as compared to broadcast or other streaming services like Prime).
But the mega cap tech companies are all about hoovering up market share to enhance the moats around their main business (and the bundles they’ve build around them). They take a long-term view on stretching their tentacles into other businesses adjacent to their main businesses.
Apple generates far more in profit than it can come close to investing into invading other business territories.
The mega cap tech companies are not playing the same game as normal media businesses (and I’d include Netflix in that as well as any linear streaming business). Those businesses have to actually generate a feasible short-term and long-term business off of what they’re spending.
Apple (and Amazon, Microsoft, Google) are more like LIV Golf when it comes to other businesses. They can just throw money at other industries to try to build something and if it works great, if not just write it off.
Amazon is the most notorious of the bunch, but the others are guilty of it too. They can overpay for market share simply because they’re taking a much longer term view of the value they can generate by getting involved and eventually muscling everybody else out…
LikeLike
You would think such a laissez-faire attitude would be reflected in Amazon prime’s content budget. Amazon doesn’t want to poison the well with a flood of bad content any more than anyone else. In my experience they care very much about how their money is spent.
LikeLike
This is true, most of Amazon’s aggressiveness in overspending is typically in outright acquisitions.
They just closed the MGM buyout a couple of months ago, and even by Hollywood standards that was an overbuy at $8.5 billion. Sort of content related I suppose since most of that value was the acqusition of MGM’s library of 4000+ movies, thousands of tv show episodes, and a functioning studio that still produces and distributes a few hundred million dollars worth of such content.
Would probably be worth less than half of that if it was trading publicly still though given the market upheaval of late.
Whole Foods is another situation where they overpaid, and it’s been stagnant in revenue terms and hasn’t really made a dent in the grocery market share that Walmart has. They’re basically going in their own direction with Amazon Fresh to try to bring costs down and make it more competitive.
And now Jassy’s trying to leave his mark by going further than Bezos did with healthcare in that new buyout they just announced of One Medical for $3.5 billion.
I typically like the attempts that Amazon has made in all these other markets, but a lot of them haven’t stuck.
Twitch is arguably Amazon’s most successful purchase at less than $1 billion (now probably worth at least 20-30x what they paid), but even there they’ve struggled to really grow it beyond its core competency of live streaming of gaming. It hasn’t really been able to grow beyond that in a way that would appeal to a much broader audience.
Anyways, that’s all an aside, but I think Amazon and Apple are serious about trying to bring sports to the future by bringing all of it to streaming. They’re sort of trying to shortcut what Disney is doing with ESPN+ and just going all in on it without any transition.
Of course given their insane profits from other businesses, they can afford to battle with money at a level nobody can match, but the exposure of broadcast is still something they struggle to combat. If they can get to the point where exposure is similar (watch Amazon’s Thursday night football numbers closely), then that would change things in a big way.
LikeLike
All true, but purchasing a content library of time tested classics and other well established IP, which took decades to amass, is a much different proposition than what Netflix is attempting to do by building their own. They produce a lot of low grade junk,, but even high production values (a’la Ryan Murphyi) do not always equate to success. I, for one, liked the MGM deal. Deep content libraries are a vanishing commodity. I’m surprised someone hasn’t scooped up Universal.
LikeLike
Brian Roberts (Comcast CEO) hasn’t been willing to let NBCUniversal separate from Comcast though I think he may be more willing if the right deal comes up now that markets are extremely bearish on streaming services’ valuations.
I’ve long thought a merger between NBCUniversal and Warner Bros would be the most logical to create a mega studio that has similar content heft as Disney with a similar broad cross-section of content: theme parks + superhero IPs in DC + premium content in HBO + all the massive IPs both studios control such as Harry Potter/Minions/etc. + DreamWorks/Illumination animation studios.
Now that AT&T split off Warner and merged it with Discovery, I think we may see Comcast do something similar and spinoff and merge NBCU with Warner Bros Discovery.
Or Comcast may try to swallow WBD in total though I think there’d be huge antitrust issues if Comcast tries to own both studios without a spinoff like AT&T did.
That’s the deal to watch for in the medium term.
Would create a worthy challenger to Disney.
LikeLike
I would put Paramount into the merger target mix, too. They would also seem to pair up well with Warner Bros. Discovery as their TV properties complement each other and it would power the HBOMax platform further.
LikeLike
Paramount’s interesting, they’re sort of caught in a bind right now where it’s hard for them to be a controlling actor due to their poor balance sheet weighing down their market cap; they’re more at the whim of what others want to do since they’d be the takeover candidate in most of these situations. They can really only target the much smaller scale players (Lionsgate/Starz or AMC Networks) if they were to look for acquisitions, but none of those move the needle. Not clear Shari Redstone wants to sell yet either.
I think a big part depends on what Warner’s leadership wants to do; the reality is that everybody except Disney and Netflix are relatively subscale.
Disney and Netflix can at least mount a fight financially with the mega cap tech co’s in terms of content spend/acquisition.
Nobody else really can, Comcast is as large as Disney but NBCU is just a fraction of Comcast; probably around $60 billion market cap if separated from Comcast cable.
Warner’s the most free to merge because it doesn’t have a broadcast network given the current rule preventing any company from owning more than 1 of ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC. That really makes Warner like the Notre Dame of this discussion if it we were discussing realignment.
But AT&T left them with a pretty heavy debt burden and Discovery’s previous merger with Scripps did the same; the combo has a poor balance sheet.
NBCU has the cleanest balance sheet of the lot because Comcast paid a cheap price for it and probably wouldn’t load it up with debt in a spinoff scenario; all that is partially why I think NBCU-WBD makes the most sense.
Paramount eventually probably ends up getting bought by someone but they’re the most likely target of a big tech company that wants broadcast exposure to work alongside streaming (Apple makes the most sense but who knows how anti-trust enforcers would view it).
LikeLike
It feels like Netflix missed their opportunity to buy a legacy studio during the period prior to April when their stock valuation was sky high.
Granted, they still have a subscriber base of 220 million households that even Disney will take several more years to reach (if they ever are able to do so).
I agree that Netflix’s largest weak spot is a lack of franchises. Disney obviously has that in spades with Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and animation library, but the only one Netflix has seemed to be able to generate is Stranger Things. We’ll see if they’re able to create a larger universe of spin-offs from that show beyond the main cast and storyline. (In my mind, a prequel focused on the Vecna/Henry character and the formation of the Hawkins Lab makes a lot of sense.) Bridgerton and the Shonda Rhimes shows aren’t my personal cup of tea, but they certainly get my wife’s demographic well. Otherwise, though, Netflix doesn’t seem to have any franchise-worthy titles, which is really the key to having any type of consistency in a historically boom and bust business.
LikeLike
Frank, thanks for the detailed GOR breakdown. If the ACC bylaws and GOR contract are the same as the B12 it seems like things will hold for the duration (or at least until the financial settlements are within the realm of practicality). As you point out, it becomes a financial calculation not a legal exercise.
Hypothetically it would seem a single school that is “Disinterested” could claim the rest of the schools are “Interested” if they called for a vote to dissolve the conference, merge with another conference, or otherwise attempt to get out of the GOR, or leave someone behind. Schools like Wake, Syracuse, BC, and/or Pitt that are never going to the B1G or SEC could claim the others are “Interested” and scuttle things.
LikeLike
Something I’ve always despised is only going to get more widespread.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/07/25/Upfront/MLB-jersey-patches.aspx
LikeLike
Just wait until CFB jerseys are like soccer jerseys, with the school names not on them to make room for the sponsor’s name. Maybe they’ll even stop putting numbers on the front, too.
LikeLike
The pro leagues will go down that path first.
LikeLike
Its a part of the future I know I’ll hate.
LikeLike
Mandel has a fresh analysis of the Pac-12 and Big XII TV value: TV numbers show Pac-12 might be healthier than we think (for now).
Mandel looked at ratings data that Andy Staples recently published, which includes games since 2015, with the shortened 2020 season excluded. As the article is behind a paywall for most readers, I will summarize the key points:
“Losing USC and UCLA is not as catastrophic as losing Oklahoma and Texas.” The Longhorns and Sooners are the very clear #1–2 in the Big XII, with everyone else pretty far behind. But over the period Mandel looked at, USC was only slightly higher-rated than Oregon, and UCLA was 6th in the Pac-12.
Neither Texas nor USC were winning big during this period, but the Longhorns averaged about 0.5m viewers more than the Trojans. Texas and/or Oklahoma were featured games on Fox or ABC far more often than USC or UCLA, which gave them more opportunities to draw in high ratings. But of course, the networks’ choice of featured games is not random: they know what people will watch.
Mandel looked at the remaining Pac-12 and Big XII teams’ TV ratings with the departing schools’ games removed. The top six, and 8 of the top 10, are Pac-12 schools. Oklahoma State, the highest-rated Big XII school, is pulling in fewer viewers than Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Washington State, Colorado or Utah — and only slightly more than Cal.
Seven of the bottom 10 are Big XII schools. The exceptions? Oregon State and the two Arizona schools. You can see that rumors of the Big XII poaching the Pac-12 are very likely nonsense. By the way, Kansas is dead last in this data set, and by a very wide margin. Their games have fewer than 1/4th as many viewers as Oregon, Stanford, or Washington. You can forget about the Jayhawks ever making it to the Big Ten.
Outside of the Big XII’s top two programs, many of their games tend to be “relegated to the ratings graveyard that is FS1.” The Big XII also lands frequently on ESPN2, which is not as bad as FS1 but not as good as the main ESPN network either. The Pac-12 gets many more of its games on ESPN, due to late starts when no other Power Five conference is playing. Those games almost always pull in >1m viewers, due to the lack of competition.
On top of all that, 30 Pac-12 games per year are now stuck in the purgatory that is the Pac-12 Networks. Those games constitute a huge reservoir of unrealized value with no counterpart in the Big XII.
Mandel thinks the Pac-12 should add to its inventory by expanding with San Diego State; he does not guess at who their +1 would be. He does not suggest that they take any Big XII schools. Oklahoma state would be the clear #1 choice, but all of the potential #2’s are problematic. Based on ratings in the data set, it would be TCU, but the Horned Frogs played above their historical average during that period. It’s not clear they would be worth having if they revert to the mean. After that, you’ve got West Virginia, Baylor, and Iowa State. The Big XII exit fee may very well be too high a barrier, even if the Pac-12 wanted these schools, which it probably does not.
LikeLike
By the way, I do not think Oklahoma State would accept a Pac-12 invitation. Even if they make a tad more in the Pac-12, they would lose most of their Texas access and play a lot of games two time zones to the west. It seems like a bad trade-off for them.
LikeLike
IMO – Oklahoma St is down the list of PAC candidates. I can easily see them not making the cut. In any sort of PAC Texas play, I don’t see OSU being additive.
If I were running the PAC my list would be:
1. TCU
2. Baylor
3. Houston
4. Tech
5. Kansas
6. Iowa St.
I’m not sure the PAC presidents will take Baylor. San Diego St plus TCU, Tech, and Houston might be the move.
LikeLike
Mike: “If I were running the PAC my list would be:
1. TCU
2. Baylor
3. Houston
4. Tech
5. Kansas
6. Iowa St.
Seems like BYU would be # 1 on any PAC list of B12 schools. That bias against Mormons is probably a lot less of a problem nowadays.
LikeLike
I’m not sure doubling down on Utah is going to be additive. Also, Utah’s entire branding strategy is the power conference school in SLC/Utah. Utah will desire as much space from BYU as possible. Best case scenario for Utah is to weaken the Big 12 to the point BYU has to go independent again.
LikeLike
Colin,
I doubt their stance on BYU has changed one iota. The only difference is that 2 of the guaranteed no votes will be leaving. Utah will do everything in its power to keep BYU out, as will Cal, Stanford, and UW. Probably UA, UO, ASU, and CU as well. Research school don’t mix well with religious schools that interfere with certain areas/lines of research and what can be taught/said on certain scientific topics. The lack of inclusiveness is a tough political sell, too. It’s also why Baylor would be hard to get approved.
Besides, as Mike points out, UU already brings the state of Utah and the SLC market. That takes away most of BYU’s financial value. The LDS population is heavily concentrated in Utah, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the mountains and west. The P10 already has UT, WA, OR, CA, AZ and CO schools.
LikeLike
It’s not a bias against LDS per se, but there are still policies at BYU that just won’t fly with the leadership at most (all?) of the Pac-12 schools. The only way that BYU gets into the Pac-12 is if everyone of value in the Pac-12 is already gone and it’s really just the MWC with a different name.
If I’m running the Pac-12, I’d go after 3 Texas-based schools (TCU for sure plus 2 out of Baylor, Houston or Texas Tech) and Kansas to get to 14. If it’s a 6 school expansion, it would be taking all 4 Texas-based schools plus Kansas and Oklahoma State. Unfortunately, I think Iowa State is in trouble here. On a pure TV ratings basis, Oklahoma State has been the most consistent draw in the Big 12 outside of UT and OU, so that’s one area where the Pac-12 might hold their nose on the academic front.
One thing that I would NOT do if I was either the Pac-12 or Big 12 is stand pat. This isn’t the time to be worried about the next TV contract, but rather which league is standing when conference realignment produces another earthquake. I strongly felt that the Big 12 made a mistake in simply staying at 10 schools for the last decade on the guise that it was best for the TV contract. As a league, they would have been better off integrating schools like Cincinnati and BYU into the conference for the past several years and building up those brands further.
History says that partnership talks that break down between conferences eventually result in one raiding the other. Putting aside the jokes about the Big Ten/Pac-12/ACC Alliance that was obviously thrown out the window with the USC/UCLA expansion, the ACC and Big East had a bunch of merger and partnership discussions in the late-1990s. The ACC then began to think that the Big East was looking to poach from them, so the ACC enacted a plan to strike the Big East first by targeting Miami and it then went on for several years afterward until the Big East football league was effectively killed.
In essence, these partnership discussions give each league free due diligence on what all of the schools are worth in the other league. Who knows when it will happen, but at some point, the Pac-12 is going to raid the Big 12 or vice versa. TV money only comes with power conference status, so preservation of that power conference status is a baseline survival need here even if the short-term TV contract doesn’t benefit.
LikeLike
Frank,
I just don’t see the value in getting the 2nd tier TX schools, nor do I see enough value to them to justify paying the B12 exit fee. The only way for the B12 and P12 to gain significant value is to consolidate the most valuable schools and drop the dead weight. Both have too many schools of low value.
Maybe these 14 get together (or drop Cal and UH to be at 12)
UW, UO, Stanford, Cal, CU, UU, ASU, UA
OkSU, TT, TCU, Baylor, UH, KU
WV is a better brand, but makes no sense for travel (add them in when the ACC can also join in). KU is in for hoops, like Cal is in for CA access. No doubling up with BYU, KSU, WSU, or OrSU. No long trips with UC or WV. ISU just doesn’t bring value.
As for the B12 expanding earlier, that would only make sense if they knew UT and OU were going to leave, and if the other schools still had the votes to add them. UT and OU would’ve voted no, so the other schools would have to override their votes (How many have to approve?). In reality, the other schools were trying to keep UT and OU happy so they wouldn’t force an expansion those two opposed.
P12 expansion needs to make financial sense. Can you convince Cal (and Stanford, and UW, and maybe others) to be in the same conference as a Cal State school? Do they want non-PhD schools in their mix? After that hurdle, maybe SDSU and Fresno State make sense to get back into SoCal. I don’t see Boise or BYU or schools outside the footprint making sense.
LikeLike
This “Power 5 Desirability Ranking” from SI is probably the most objective way to judge potential newcomers to the Pac-12. BYU at # 40 is in the same ballpark as TCU and Baylor and is far ahead of Colorado, Arizona, Wash St and Oregon St.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/power-5-desirability-rankings-sec-big-ten-acc
LikeLike
@Brian – Oh, I get it and that’s probably how the Pac-12 schools are thinking right now: they’re just looking at the immediate TV contract value.
My argument for Pac-12 expansion is more global: there’s a pretty good chance that, at some point, the current Power 5 is going to turn into a very clear Power 4… and the Pac-12 needs to do everything that it can to make sure that it’s one of those P4 leagues as opposed to the Big 12. (I’d say the exact same thing in reverse for the Big 12.) For as much as we talk about TV money, if that power status goes away, then that TV money goes away entirely.
Obviously, the devil is in the details. If the Pac-12 schools would suffer a 50% paycut per school with expansion, then sure, there’s no way that’s going to happen. However, if the TV contract stays the same or even if there’s a 10% paycut per school with expansion but it means killing off the Big 12 as any type of conceivable threat even if Washington and Oregon leave in the future, then that’s a different value proposition to me.
In fact, it goes back to the core prisoner’s dilemma situation between the Pac-12 and Big 12: the Pac-12 is more valuable than the Big 12 if its stays all together, but if any single Pac-12 schools moves, then the league probably collapses and the Big 12 becomes more valuable.
What’s holding the value of the Pac-12 back isn’t its brands, but rather its lack of stability here (e.g. it wouldn’t just lose value without Washington and Oregon, but rather be destroyed as a league entirely). Effectively, the Pac-12 might be wise to “pay” for some stability in the form of those reinforcements even if that doesn’t really raise (or maybe even slightly decrease) the per school TV value. It’s akin to your health – you can have all the money in the world, but it’s pretty irrelevant without your health. Likewise, in conference realignment, you could be maximizing your TV revenue at a certain size, but if your membership is unstable, that TV revenue could go away at any moment.
LikeLike
The problem is that most of the schools are low-value, or low-value enough that there isn’t clear deadweight to be dropped. In football, KU is clear deadweight, but they are a king in basketball so still bring obvious value. When the vast majority of the schools are pretty close to each other in value, there’s not much you can do there. UW and UO aren’t going to be able to form a conference just by themselves.
And you can’t overrely on a few years of near term data either. For example, Cal hasn’t done well lately, so hasn’t gotten eyeballs, but if Cal did as well as Stanford has, they’d definitely get more viewers than Stanford.
LikeLike
Frank,
I think both the B12 and P12 should just be trying to prep for 2036. That’s when the P5 may drop to a P3 or P4. I don’t think adding B12 schools who are a poor fit for the P12 offers stability, it just means they’re likely to leave in 2036 if the ACC offers them a penny more. At least adding SDSU and Fresno would be schools that aren’t likely to defect. The B12 may regret having schools like UC, UCF and WV which would all rather be in the ACC.
It may take the ACC losing some key schools in 2036 and backfilling from the B12 to force the B12 and P12 to merge as a member of the P4. Forming the “best of the rest” conference in 2036 is their shot at being a P3 conference.
LikeLike
Colin,
Even if that list was basically accurate (which it likely isn’t), you can’t generalize desirability to conferences. The B10 looks for different things than the SEC, the B12 and the P12 want different things, etc.
BYU might look good on paper, but that doesn’t mean they are attractive to the P12. First, already having Utah (and most other western states) greatly reduces the value of BYU. Second, the academic/cultural differences between BYU and the P12 are huge.
LikeLike
Richard,
Don’t forget that this data removes ND games. Stanford gets those to boost their ratings value even if they are bad. Cal doesn’t get that advantage. So I’m not sure that an equally good Cal would top Stanford overall.
LikeLike
@Frank
I strongly felt that the Big 12 made a mistake in simply staying at 10 schools for the last decade on the guise that it was best for the TV contract. As a league, they would have been better off integrating schools like Cincinnati and BYU into the conference for the past several years and building up those brands further.
That might have been the best thing for the league as a whole, but Oklahoma and Texas would never have allowed it. They had too many other options to justify taking a pay cut just because it helped the rest of the conference.
Now the PAC is in a somewhat different position (mostly because Oregon and Washington don’t have guaranteed landing spots elsewhere meaning they have to be a bit more cautious) but you still have to factor in the reality that what is best for the conference is not necessarily the same as what is best for the all its members.
LikeLike
Excellent article. Given the lack of competition and good ratings for Pac after Dark, I can see ESPN expanding Pac after Dark to include Friday night. B12 of ACC could use a 7p Friday slot.
With the expanded SEC taking up most of the best ABC/ESPN slots, an expanded Pac after Dark may be as good as it gets for the Pac, outside of a random #6 Oregon v #14 Washington game during an unusually weak SEC weekend.
LikeLike
The Pac 12 schools hate that. They have been complaining and trying to reduce their number of games at that time. And hardly anybody in the eastern time zones watch those games. I used to like to watch the 10:30 games when I was in the CTZ, but in the East, you don’t even get to halftime until after midnight.
LikeLike
Part of that is because all their networks put games then. Some teams had more than half their games that late. I counted 8 one year for Arizona.
LikeLike
Doesn’t Arizona have to have home night games because of the heat?
LikeLike
Mike: “Doesn’t Arizona have to have home night games because of the heat?”
That is why domed, air-conditioned Allegiant Stadium in Vegas totally changes the dynamics for UNLV.
LikeLike
Mike,
Early in the season, yes. But not in late October and November.
LikeLike
I will give the Big 12 credit, they have really driven the narrative that the Big 12 is poised to raid the PAC any day now. Even if the Big Ten comes back for additional schools, the PAC will still have better academics and brands. I highly doubt that there is one Big 12 president who wouldn’t jump at the chance to be associated with Cal, Stanford, Washington, Utah or Colorado. That doesn’t even take into account Colorado paying millions to leave a much better Big 12, nor does it account for Utah’s entire branding strategy against arch rival BYU.
IMO – If there is any raid, it will be the PAC raiding the Big 12
LikeLike
Yep, I just don’t see the per capita payouts for the Pac, B12, and ACC to be different enough for any poaching to go on between those 3 conferences, especially when you consider that the costs of wrecking traditional rivalries, extra travel costs, and buyouts will eat in to any extra revenue difference.
LikeLike
I will give the Big 12 credit, they have really driven the narrative that the Big 12 is poised to raid the PAC any day now.
As these stories are totally unsourced, we don’t know where they are coming from. It could be one or two very delusional boosters.
LikeLike
Not correct. Some of it is based on the Navigate analysis which showed the Pac 12 with USC and UCLA just a little ahead of the nBig 12 in revenue. Navigate is a media consultant.
LikeLike
https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/
That’s true.
I linked the most recent version of their analysis that I’ve seen. It’s a big change from the version 2 weeks earlier, because the latest version assumes a 12-team playoff with unequal revenue sharing. The prior model assumed 8 teams
* Our initial model estimated that 63% of payout goes towards base payments to conferences and the remaining 37% goes towards conferences in NY6 bowls and playoff games, which was also assumed in this new model.
* To allocate non-base payouts, we looked back at the last 11-years (2011 to 2021) of college football performance and assumed the proposed 12-team playoff rules are used for participation to estimate the number of teams included in the playoff each year:
** P5 Champions are included in the playoff.
** Highest Ranked G5 conference champion is included in the playoff.
** Remaining 6 playoff teams are at-large bids.
Teams per year
SEC – 3.8
B10 – 2.2
P12 – 1.6
B12 – 1.5
ACC – 1.4
Those numbers differ greatly from the counts based on the CFP era (2014-2021)
It’s important to note that this does not include the move of USC and UCLA, but does include the changes coming to the SEC and B12.
Navigate doesn’t explain their work in detail, they just show some numbers and list basic assumptions. There are a lot of things to question about their results.
You see the B10 jump in 2024 (new TV deal). Then the SEC in 2025 (UT + OU). Everybody jumps in 2026 with the expanded CFP.
But this lets us compare some things:
B10 growth (total payout in millions of $)
2022: 57.2
2023: 58.9
2024: 73.0 (would’ve been 60.7 – so $12.3M bump from new TV deal)
2025: 75.2
2026: 92.5 (would’ve been 77.4 – so $15.2M bump from CFP)
2027: 95.3
SEC growth (total payout in millions of $)
2022: 54.3
2023: 56.0
2024: 57.6 (shouldn’t the new ESPN deal start here?)
2025: 74.9 (would’ve been 59.4 – so $15.5M bump from new members, TV deal)
2026: 107.8 (would’ve been 77.1 – so $30.7M bump from CFP)
2027: 111.0
The report assumes 3% annual growth when nothing else changes.
You’ll see that the report basically has the B10 and SEC being even by 2025 outside of the CFP. The SEC jump from expansion is only $3.2M per school larger than the B10’s jump due to just a new TV deal.
So what happens with USC and UCLA joining the B10? Navigate hasn’t estimated those numbers yet. But if this talk of $1B or more for the new TV deal is correct, just the TV would be $71-75M per school. That would push the B10’s total to $80-85M before CFP expansion.
As for the other P5s:
* ACC just barely jumps the P12 in 2023 thanks to wider ACCN carriage, with B12 $5M ahead.
* New P12 deal in 2024 almost catches the P12 up to the B12 (USC and UCLA still included)
* B12 doesn’t drop at all despite losing UT and OU in 2025 as they start a new TV deal
* P12 takes the lead in 2026 due to CFP expansion, with ACC next and B12 last (but all very similar)
Obviously the USC/UCLA move will change these numbers. I’m not convinced 2025 will work out that evenly for the B12.
LikeLike
I will give the Big 12 credit, they have really driven the narrative that the Big 12 is poised to raid the PAC any day now.
it is pretty incredible how the narrative is that the B12 is solid and P12 is shaky. The B12 is solid because…. they added four G5 teams? That seems to be the root of it.
Both leagues have their rights coming up for bid. I don’t see how the B12 gets a higher per-team payout than the P12. The continuing P12 team ratings beat the continuing B12 team ratings, and that doesn’t include the lower-rated G5 teams they’ve added.
When the USC/UCLA move happened, the P12 rushed to open their 30-day negotiating window. It seems like they rushed to open the window to get to the open market and see what is out there. That 30-day window is about to end, so in a week or two there may be some big news.
LikeLike
It seems like they rushed to open the window to get to the open market and see what is out there. That 30-day window is about to end, so in a week or two there may be some big news.
Unless ESPN (or FOX) makes a “godfather” like offer (and they really have no reason to at this point) it will probably be longer then that. The PAC will have to solicit bids and get an answer from the serious bidders on the expansion question. Wilner noted that the PAC will know where it stands financially (i.e. what ball park its in) a few months from now. Until then we’ll get to enjoy the weekly “Arizona applied for Big 12 admission today” rumors.
LikeLike
It is pretty incredible how the narrative is that the B12 is solid and P12 is shaky.
Much of the reasoning is that the Big Ten could raid the Pac-12 again. The Big XII’s supposed stability is directly tied to its mediocrity. It has no remaining teams that other leagues are likely to want.
Hence, a team joining the Big XII could be reasonably sure that the league’s composition won’t get worse, but it is probably not getting better either. The Pac-12 could conceivably get worse, e.g., Notre Dame joins the Big Ten with Stanford.
LikeLike
Seems like the Pac-12 has four relatively solid candidates for expansion, all within their current footprint: San Diego St, UNLV, Boise State and BYU. Note that UNLV is now playing in the new NFL Allegiant Stadium.
It’s hard to see Colorado going back to the Big XII. Just a few years ago, they paid a hefty exit fee to get OUT of the Big XII. Would they get a refund?
LikeLike
Much of the reasoning is that the Big Ten could raid the Pac-12 again.
IMO – being in a league where promotions come from is a selling point.
Hence, a team joining the Big XII could be reasonably sure that the league’s composition won’t get worse, but it is probably not getting better either.
That’s not the worst case scenario for the Big 12 teams, but that’s pretty close. Every one of them desires to be 1) Either a Big Ten or SEC team or 2) A third league with a similar paycheck.
The Pac-12 could conceivably get worse, e.g., Notre Dame joins the Big Ten with Stanford.
If that were to happen, by every metric, the PAC would still be a better conference.
LikeLike
Colin,
I disagree. Once you do the analysis, those schools aren’t great choices. Remember, they need to bring about $30M.
SDSU is the best of the bunch, as it gets them back into SoCal. But San Diego is a much smaller market than LA, and SDSU a much smaller brand. A big problem is that SDSU is part of the Cal State system, and thus can’t offer PhD programs by themselves (SDSU does offer some PhD programs with another school – either a UC school or a private school). Fresno State has the same issues.
UNLV brings the #40 Las Vegas market and the #33 state of NV (3.2M), but that’s it. It’s terrible at sports, and the pro sports teams will crush UNLV for attention. UNLV is also a mediocre school (#249 in USNWR). UNR is the slightly better flagship, but it’s market is tiny.
Boise was a junior college until 1965. It started its first doctoral program in 1993. It is only an R2 school and ranked in the 300s. Also Boise is tiny and so is Idaho. All BSU has is a decent football brand, and that’s slipping.
I explained BYU’s issues above. It brings no new market, and the LDS influence over teaching and research is a deal-breaker.
The P12 may value SoCal enough to take SDSU. Maybe Fresno gets in by the same logic. I don’t see BSU, BYU, or UNLV having a chance. Personally, I don’t think any of these schools bring the value the P12 needs. They are better as a P10. If someone else leaves (like Stanford as ND’s +1), then add SDSU to return to 10.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure BYU is not making $30m for its independent TV contract, and they play a pretty good (almost P5-level) schedule. Estimates I have seen are between $4.5–6.0 million.
LikeLike
By competitive metrics in the revenue sports, the Big 12 is clearly superior. The nBig12 may be the best basketball conference. The Pac 12 has not even been #6 in recent years. In football, the nBig12 schools have done better. The R8 have better average football attendance than the Pac 12 WITH USC and UCLA. With the 4 new members, they are only a little behind.
How that translates into TV $$s is hard to say.
LikeLike
bullet,
Yes, I don’t think anyone disagrees the B12 has been better on the field and the court lately. Of course, some of that success came from OU and UT.
The “best” hoops conference changes from year to year. The B12 isn’t definitively better than everyone else like the SEC has been in football.
Attendance is nice, but means little for TV value.
The big markets in the P12 mean a lot to TV. The bigger brands in the P12 mean a lot, too. And apparently the late night TV windows do as well.
Remember, even a terrible ND team gets millions of viewers every game. It’s not fair, but success and viewership do not track together all the time.
LikeLike
In Mandel’s article the P10 beat the R8. In pretty much every other one I’ve seen they are pretty equal or maybe a little better for the R8. Now the 3 AAC schools come out near the bottom in every analysis, but its hard to compare them in the AAC with the AAC TV contract.
LikeLike
Basically, the P10 has done better in every analysis I’ve seen that ignores games against ND and the teams leaving their conferences (and B10 and SEC). The R8 does better if you don’t ignore all those games.
I think it’s really that simple.
LikeLike
That makes it sound vaguely as though UCLA got its invitation to the B1G as a piggyback to USC. If Gov. Newsome somehow stopped UCLA, if the B1G took Stanford instead of UCLA, it would not be much of a loss to the B1G.
Obviously travel to two LA schools is a lot easier than a trip to LA and SF. Other than that UCLA may not offer much more than Stanford.
LikeLike
Most expansions are in pairs with an obvious #1, which in this case is USC. I agree, if you sub Stanford for UCLA, the Big Ten is certainly no worse off, and it might even be better.
Newsom is not going to prevent UCLA from going to the Big Ten. Even if he had the power to do so, it would be financially ruinous. I think he is peeved that he didn’t get to weigh in on the decision. Once he sees the numbers, he will realize there is no better alternative.
LikeLike
His probable end game is to get Cal into the B1G.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think he really had an end game in mind when he started this. I’m not even sure if he was angry before Cal and/or Stanford donors started calling him and demanding to know what was going on. Then he was angry because he wasn’t in the loop and felt embarrassed, so he threw a temper tantrum. I’m sure an aide quickly explained to him the financial benefits to UCLA, but that wasn’t really the point anymore.
He may have had an initial reaction that he could pressure people into taking Cal along, but I’m sure he was quickly disabused of that notion. The B10 couldn’t care less what Newsom thinks. Neither could USC. He can pressure UCLA, but they knew their actions were legal (I’m sure they studied that in detail before signing). They also know that punishing the academic side of the school would be terrible optics for him.
It’s a bit ironic that he is so upset about the business of college sports now, after he pushed for the NIL law in CA.
LikeLike
Marc,
UCLA erred by not being a bit more open with the BoR. They could’ve held a private meeting to explain the move at the same time they were signing the deal. Give the regents some numbers and explain that USC was leaving regardless, and that would tank the P12 TV deal all by itself. If UCLA didn’t go, Stanford or UW would (don’t need proof) and then both UC schools would suffer. Newsom likely wouldn’t have been at the meeting (he usually doesn’t attend), but afterwards he couldn’t complain they regents weren’t told.
LikeLike
Oh yes, you are right that they did not handle it well tactically. But in the end I expect them to prevail.
LikeLike
Agreed, they’re going. They only question is if they get taxed or punished by the regents now, or if the administrators just get chewed out.
LikeLike
UCLA is far superior long term to Stanford. They are like Miami. When they are good, everybody watches. If conference commissioners were to do a top 20 draft, UCLA is probably in, even if you excluded academic snobs. They’ve just had a long dry spell since the 90s.
LikeLike
I don’t know. At some point it’s not a dry spell, it’s your new place in the pecking order. UCLA had 9 consecutive winning seasons in 80s, 6 total in the 90s, 5 in the 00s, and 4 in the 10s. They have a 0.577 W% (38th best). Who’s #37? Stanford.
Plus Stanford opens another major market in CA, while UCLA is double dipping in the same one as USC. If RU serves the B10’s purposes in NYC, certainly USC can do so by itself in LA. For the B10 including USC, I think Stanford actually brings more value.
LikeLike
Not sure it’s as clear as that Brian.
LA (and whatever pull UCLA has throughout Cali) is like Texas, it’s such a gigantic market that having 2 schools out there is fine.
Not sure you get the full value out of the LA market with just 7 USC home games out there. Adding another 7 UCLA home game is worth it.
It’s increased exposure that’s probably needed when you consider how far away that part of the country is and detached from the rest in terms of exposure/time zone/etc.
That’s 8-9 Big Ten schools visiting there annually. That’s huge value on an annual basis that I don’t think you get from just having 1 flag planted out there.
LikeLike
And of course, many of us assume that Stanford is likely to be ND’s partner if they ever join the Big Ten, so sort of like Stanford is just waiting.
As far as winning/potential goes, UCLA has the ability to punch at the weight of a Wisconsin if it’s really rolling but it’s going to be hard if they’re being “showcased” with a lot of visits from big brands in the Big Ten.
Stanford’s pretty unique among the smart schools in that they generally win the head-to-head battle for a lot of 4+ star recruits that want to go to the most prestigious place that has D1 football.
So they absolutely have that long-term edge in place given that Stanford’s prestige exceeds the rest of the top undergrads in FBS like Duke/Northwestern/ND/Vandy/etc.
LikeLike
“And of course, many of us assume that Stanford is likely to be ND’s partner if they ever join the Big Ten, so sort of like Stanford is just waiting.”
Z33k, I’ve posted this twice before but I’ll do it yet again. There is zero evidence that Stanford wants to go to the Big Ten or that they would do so if invited.
LikeLike
z33k,
Fine wasn’t the question. I don’t object to having UCLA. The question was whether it was more valuable than Stanford.
UCLA football is an afterthought in LA. Sending Iowa out there to play won’t change that. LA is a bandwagon town – UCLA has to win big for anyone to care.
And while you’re getting this extra LA exposure, you’re getting zero exposure in SF. There are a lot of B10 alumni there, too. Is double exposure in LA better than the top CFB brand in LA plus SF exposure?
And I’m analyzing all of this on the current plans. If ND will bring a P12 +1 later, then we can debate whether another CA school (Stanford for you, UCLA for me), or UW would make more sense. But I’m not looking at this move assuming I know the next one. We have no proof Stanford would even say yes.
LikeLike
The UCLA brand value is interesting. I think it does have the 2nd most value in the Pac 12 for the Big Ten/SEC. I think the buildup to the LSU/UCLA game among casual fans last year was bigger than it would have been if LSU was playing Utah or Oregon, even though those schools are better at football right now. Checking an article for last year, that game got 3.22 million viewers, a solid number given it was against Georgia/Clemson (8.86 million viewers), both of whom were seen as stronger national title contenders.
When determining the value of the “leftovers” in the Big 12 and Pac 10 to TV networks we rightfully judge how they do when they’re not playing the big brands…they won’t have those teams as conference members. But when judging the value of schools to the Big Ten or SEC that’s not very important; we want to know how they do vs. big brands. Of course, that gets tricky because you have to somehow account for the audience that the other big brand brings.
If the governor of California does sabotage UCLA’s Big Ten entry, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SEC offered UCLA/Cal as a package. I’m not 100% sure they would get an offer, but I’m confident Alabama/Tennessee/Georgia/etc. vs. UCLA would get ratings and have additional recruiting benefits to SEC schools.
LikeLike
By itself, UCLA is very valuable. That’s not the question. The question is how much additional TV value do the bring beyond what USC brings. All I’m saying is that Stanford brings about the same value as UCLA, because Stanford opens a new market and UCLA doesn’t. It’s not a huge stretch based on the value estimates from that expert..
LikeLike
Bernie,
I didn’t read the article, but of course UCLA rode USC’s coattails into the B10. USC is the football brand, and football is 80% of a TV deal. USC by itself brings the LA market for TV purposes. UCLA is a fading hoops blueblood and a great school in a big market. USC demanded them as a partner (so they didn’t have to have 2 locked OOC rivals), and the B10 was happy to say yes. But honestly, Stanford might actually bring more value.
One set of P12 estimates said USC + UCLA was worth $200M out of the P12’s $500M. It also said Cal + Stanford was worth $90M. My guess is that USC is worth $150M of that $200M, and that Stanford is worth more than half of that $90M (bigger football brand). Combined, I think USC + Stanford is worth about the same $200M.
You are right about travel, and UCLA maintains a big rivalry for USC. It also guarantees schools a trip to CA essentially every year. And UCLA brings that hoops brand. But having Stanford and USC may have some value in terms of eventually landing ND, plus it lands the SF market.
LikeLike
I think there’s been a bit of underrating of the value of UCLA in the media. While I agree that USC is the more valuable brand due to football, the LA market is so massive by itself (larger population than every state other than Texas, Florida and New York) that being able to *monopolize* the LA market with the USC/UCLA combo has synergistic value beyond just having USC there. It’s similar to the SEC now having the Texas/Texas A&M combo – even though there are other Texas-based schools in the Big 12, the reality is that getting UT/A&M effectively means that the SEC owns the State of Texas and that’s a valuable enough market by itself that it’s more than worth it to take both schools. This isn’t like Texas previously demanding to bring Texas Tech with them – I honestly believe that if UCLA approached the Big Ten for membership alone, the league would have taken them within two seconds.
On basketball, it always perplexes me when I see UCLA named as a supposedly fading basketball blue blood. They just made a Final Four in 2021 and had a run of three straight Final Fours in the late-2000s. 99% of schools would trade for that recent on-the-court record in a heartbeat. I think UCLA boosting the overall value of the Big Ten basketball package isn’t being taken into account enough in a lot of quarters – the Big Ten is able to monetize basketball better than other leagues because of the BTN and we may see hoops become a more important part of streaming packages going forward.
LikeLike
Frank – while I think USC/UCLA is by far the best add the B1G could have made, but “owning” the LA market (2nd largest DMA) is really not comparable to owning the state of Texas (2nd largest state).
USC will never be as popular as it was during the Pete Carroll early 2000s when they were the only real football game in town. With the Rams, Lakers and Dodgers all recently winning championships, at best USC football is #4 in a huge, but bandwagon market. When USC was last the toast of the town, there was no NFL competition.
I’m guessing that UCLA football is below the Angels, Chargers and maybe even the Clippers in fan support. When LSU opened the 2021 season against UCLA at the Rose Bowl, the Tigers brought about 30k fans. What little homefield advantage UCLA had was due to a last minute campaign to hand out free tickets to any LA County public school student.
Also, LA lacks the sometimes unhealthy obsession with football that afflicts so many in Texas. I would guess that UT football is only behind the NFL Cowboys in a state obsessed with football. If the Longhorns are behind the NFL Texans, its probably not by much. Throw in #4 Aggies and the #5 Sooners, and that’s locking down a market/state.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Oh, no doubt that LA is not like the State of Texas in terms of football fandom.
What I do think its important is that the history of LA college football fandom is quite favorable compared to many of the largest urban metro markets like NYC, Chicago, DC and their neighbors to the North in the Bay Area. I’ve never been someone that is as hung up on the pro/college sports fan separation or ranking within markets – the Big Ten Midwestern footprint is a clear example where NFL and college football fandom coexist at an extremely high level for both (and for that matter, the State of Texas is like that with the Cowboys and its support for UT/A&M, too).
Chicago has 5 pro sports teams, but I’d put up the fandom for the clear #5 team (my White Sox) against the #1 teams in the vast majority of pro sports markets. To the extent that Notre Dame has any home market, it’s Chicago, but it would be clearly #6 behind all 5 pro sports teams here in a ranking… but that would belie the still super high interest in ND in this market and the sheer number is huge due to the population size here. In the case of LA, the Lakers and Dodgers are two of the most iconic franchises in their respective sports (e.g. what the Cowboys are to the NFL) and the Rams just won the Super Bowl – I don’t really see an issue with USC being ranked behind them. We could only wish that, say, Rutgers even had a chance to be the #4 team in the NYC market behind the Yankees, Giants and Knicks. If that were the case, the Big Ten would probably be looking at a $2 billion or $3 billion per year TV contract.
LikeLike
Frank,
The key is that we’re discussing USC and UCLA as a pair. UCLA by itself has more value than UCLA adds as USC’s partner.
I don’t buy that college sports can have much power in LA. LA, like Miami, is all about bandwagon fans for winning teams. If USC is winning big, it’s huge in LA. UCLA has never been at that level in football, but presumably would have a similar effect (though they are the Clippers to USC’s Lakers). A dominant UCLA hoops team would be popular, but that is Lakers’ territory first and foremost. A good Lakers team trumps coverage of UCLA hoops every time.
For your SEC in TX analogy, I’d adjust it:
USC in LA = UT + TAMU in TX
UCLA football in LA = TT + TCU + UH + Baylor in TX
“I honestly believe that if UCLA approached the Big Ten for membership alone, the league would have taken them within two seconds.”
I agree 100%, because in that case they’d be bringing the B10 into LA. But USC does that even more powerfully, leaving the added value of UCLA diminished.
“On basketball, it always perplexes me when I see UCLA named as a supposedly fading basketball blue blood. They just made a Final Four in 2021 and had a run of three straight Final Fours in the late-2000s.”
UCLA only has themselves to blame for that. Wooden set their bar so ridiculously high, they can never match it. So UCLA will always be down from their peak. And LA fans would rather watch the Lakers anyway. There was also that down period of about 12 years before 2021, and quite honestly I’ve stopped following MBB lately so I couldn’t tell you that UCLA made a Final Four recently. There were bigger events going on at the time.
“I think UCLA boosting the overall value of the Big Ten basketball package isn’t being taken into account enough in a lot of quarters – the Big Ten is able to monetize basketball better than other leagues because of the BTN and we may see hoops become a more important part of streaming packages going forward.”
MBB is only 20% of the media deal. It takes a big change in that to be noticeable in the overall deal, and you have to make sure it doesn’t hurt the football side. Plus, B10 MBB is already really valuable as far as MBB goes. How much can UCLA boost it? We recently saw how the B10 had 6 of the top 10 games last year. I think the year to year fluctuations will trump any noticeable gain in value from adding UCLA. The B12, Big East, and ACC are all tough leagues.
LikeLike
Bringing in brands isn’t just about the home market though.
USC and UCLA play well across the entire West (in football/basketball respectively) due to their 100 years in the Pac-12 and its predecessors.
It’s true that the Big Ten will never own Cali/LA to the extent that the SEC is getting Texas into its footprint, but the brand power is a big part of the story and that’s the extra eyeballs you should get in crossover matchups.
Every matchup involving those 2 is going to basically be a national matchup; how much does that matter?
It’s like 2 Pac-12 schools playing an entire crossover schedule. Over time obviously that will mitigate, but the Big Ten having 2 schools way out West is a bit different from any of these conference moves and I’m not sure it’s clear how the ratings will look in the long-term.
LikeLike
z33k,
How much is a MBB brand worth? Fewer people watch the regular season anymore, and those who do will watch whatever games ESPN puts on. UCLA was highly ranked last year, but played in no top 10 viewership games despite playing #1 Gonzaga. Plus hoops is only 20% of the TV deal, so any change in its value gets diluted.
LikeLike
Fair point Brian, but I think MBB has potential if the Big Ten takes UNC, UVA, Duke in its next round.
That’s probably a point at which the Big Ten has enough brand power to measurably raise prices on MBB for ESPN/CBS.
Maybe it’s just enough to pay for 4 more additions but it’s interesting to contemplate I suppose.
I think if you have enough brand power, maybe you can make the regular season sorta matter enough.
LikeLike
One simple fact on the value of UCLA. USC and UCLA BOTH got guarantees that they would get at least $17 million on the initial Pac 12 contract. Since it was more than that, the guarantee was moot. But the whole Pac 12 recognized UCLA’s value.
LikeLike
The promise was basically that they wouldn’t make less on the new deal with equal revenue sharing than they did on the old deal. But TV deals normally jump considerably, and the P12 had been undervalued for a long time, so that wasn’t much of a promise. The P12 made the promise because they wanted unanimous acceptance and both USC and UCLA wanted a safety net.
UCLA was also a bigger CFB brand in the past then now. Every year of losing lessens them. They just ride their home market for value (see RU). And UW used to benefit from the unequal sharing as well, then their football fell off after Don James and they switched sides on the issue.
For 1946-2000 (55 years) UCLA was #15 in W% (0.638)
1946-2011 – #22 0.615
1946-2021 – #20 0.604 (Southern Miss, AR, and Miami(OH) dropped below them)
For just 2001-2021 – #56 (0.525)
I’m more than happy to say UCLA is worth an extra $17M per year. I guessed they were worth $50M. But Stanford is also worth about $50M in my eyes, so it’s a wash.
LikeLike
The response of B12 fans to this is interesting. Andy Staples also got slammed by B12 fans for his similar analysis.
B12 fans make one valid point, that much of the P12’s advantage is due to TV windows. In other words, the P12 after dark time slot is boosting the P12 averages. But I don’t get their point. Is the B12 going to start playing at 10:30 ET? Unless the B12 expands into CA, that doesn’t seem like an option. Even then, they’d have limited inventory compared to the P12.
This leads back to that internet analysis broken down by network and time. A follow-up tweet by another person turned it into a table with school averages on each network, then converted that into a Z-score. I just looked at 3 things: ABC average (normalized from 0 to 1), ESPN/Fox average (normalized), and secondary networks averaged (normalized). I average those 3 values and ranked the schools.
Rank School Ave
1 UO 0.96
2 FSU 0.93
3 UL 0.83
4 UW 0.79
5 Clem 0.78
6 OkSU 0.78
7 VT 0.77
8 Miami 0.77
9 WSU 0.76
10 Bay 0.76
11 Stan 0.75
12 TCU 0.74
13 ASU 0.74
14 UU 0.72
15 UVA 0.70
16 KSU 0.70
17 SU 0.70
18 WVU 0.69
19 Pitt 0.69
20 GT 0.68
21 OrSU 0.67
22 BC 0.67
23 ISU 0.64
24 NCSU 0.63
25 Cal 0.61
26 BYU 0.59
27 CU 0.58
28 TT 0.57
29 AZ 0.56
30 Duke 0.55
31 WF 0.55
32 Cin 0.54
33 UNC 0.53
34 UCF 0.50
35 KU 0.46
36 UH 0.41
A lot of these schools are pretty similar. That’s the main takeaway.
P12 average = 0.71
ACC average = 0.70
Current B12 average (8) = 0.67
New B12 average (12) = 0.61
P12 – 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, 25, 27, 29
B12 – 6, 10, 12, 16, 18, 23, 28, 35, 26*, 32*, 34*, 36*
The P12 has a slight edge, mostly driven by UO. The new B12 members hurt the average, but they were playing G5 opponents then. KU really hurts the B12 average – it’s be 0.70 without them.
And note that football struggles in NC (best is #24 NCSU, with Duke second).
LikeLike
I think fans of a school are going to be naturally biased toward whatever narrative serves best for their school and/or, by extension, their conference.
Granted, it’s interesting that suddenly the late night Pac-12 games are now supposedly an advantage when so much of what we’ve heard about the undervaluing of the Pac-12 over the past few years is their lack of Eastern/Central Time Zone games. In fact, I’ve heard many Big 12 fans point to the Eastern/Central Time Zone footprint reason as why the league would be worth more than the Pac-12 now and a reason for the Four Corners schools to bolt.
To me, those arguments directly contradict each other. People can’t simultaneously argue about the superior value of ET/CT games on the one hand but then critique the Pac-12 for getting “artificially” higher ratings for late night West Coast games. If anything, the time zone differences ultimately balance out – the inability for the Pac-12 to realistically have 12 pm ET games is balanced out by their ability to have late night games.
LikeLike
Frank – I think the argument is Pac after Dark on ESPN with no competition is better than being stuck on ESPN2 up going up against the two SEC and two B1G games.
Best time slots going forward. All times Eastern:
1a. Primetime – ABC (mostly SEC)
2b. Random primetime – FOX (mostly B1G) and NBC (ND)
2a. 3:30p – ABC (SEC)
2b. Noon – FOX (mostly B1G)
3. 2:30p – NBC (Notre Dame)
5. 3:30p – CBS (B1G?)
6. Noon – ABC (mostly ACC?)
7a. 3:30p – ESPN (mostly ACC?)
7b. 3:30p – FOX (B-12?)
9. Primetime – ESPN (ACC/Pac?)
10. Pac after dark – ESPN
11. ESPN Friday night primetime (ACC?)
12. Pac after dark – ESPN Friday edition
13 – 15. ESPN 2 noon, 3:30 & primetime
16 – 17. Any ESPNU or ESPNNews broadcast
18. Any FS1 broadcast
LikeLike
FS1 isn’t that far behind ESPN2 and its well ahead of ESPNU, ESPNNews and FS2.
LikeLike
A few years ago, the P5 leagues could squint at each other from a distance, and plausibly argue they were near-equals. OK, not quite equals. The Pac-12 had this big disadvantage that they couldn’t play at noon, and their after-dark games were not watched in most of the country.
Fast forward to today, and the P5 are not equals anymore, and anyone claiming they are would be laughed out of the room. In a battle to become the clear No. 3, the after-dark time slot is suddenly an advantage the other two haven’t got.
LikeLike
Frank,
Sure, fans will cherry pick the data/argument that supports them. And there is some truth to both sides here, as Alan points out. A bad time slot that is exclusive to you may be better than a good time slot slammed with better games. Being #1 at 10:30 trumps being #5 at 12 or 3:30.
Part of it is also that P12 fans loathe the late games, so everyone accepted their complaints as valid and came to think of those as bad. It doesn’t mean the data actually supports them. The P12 fans are correct that the late slot puts a ceiling on their ratings, but they didn’t think about the fact they got to avoid going head to head with the B10 and SEC. Their bigger issue was P12N games. We really won’t know what P12 schools can draw for ratings until those games are available to more than 10M people.
When the B12 has UT and OU, ET time slots are an advantage. Once those two leave, B10 and SEC games will crush the B12 competition during the day and primetime. Then those ET windows are a bad thing. It’s one reason some B12 fans suggest expanding out west – so they can show late games. But that makes no sense if most of your fans live in TX and other CT states – they won’t watch the whole game either. The P12 is uniquely situated to use those windows.
LikeLike
That analysis excluded so much data I don’t know how valid it is. Ask yourself, is UNC really below NCSU, Duke and Wake Forest? Is WSU #3 and OSU #5 in the Pac 12? Is Louisville ahead of Clemson? If UVA really #15 overall? None of this passes the smell test. Maybe it makes some sense for the most part in who is top half and who is bottom half, but not much more than that.
LikeLike
bullet,
I think it’s more valid because it excluded those games. We know ND, UT, OU and USC would skew the ratings. We also know that postseason games do. OOC games against big brands from the SEC and B10 do as well. The OSU-TCU game (over 7M viewers) was a prime motivator for why people excluded B10 games, for example. That game was not representative of TCU’s drawing power in the B12. There were still about 50 games in each conference that were included (and conference games count twice – once for each school), which is a decent sample size. But yes, small sample sizes are a concern. But to get a larger sample size, you’d introduce other issues (TV options change over time, etc.). I don’t think counting mirror games would reduce the error.
I think the problem is that you keep reading the wrong things into this data. Remember what those numbers are, and more importantly what they are not. They are not an ordinal ranking of which schools draw the most viewers. They are normalized viewers in each of 3 categories averaged. They attempt to rank how well these schools did relative to the network their games were shown on. One big factor missing is that they are not adjusted for the number of games in each category. Being a weak draw on ABC will still pull many more viewers than a strong draw on ESPNU. That is not rewarded in this list.
So could UNC being lowest in NC make sense? Sure. If they did relatively poorly compared to other ABC games while others did okay on lesser broadcasts. That’s why my takeaway was that CFB in NC doesn’t do well, not that any one school didn’t do well. For total viewers, you can look at Mandel’s data.
WSU plays a fun type of football, and often had the late night window. I can believe they were #3 on this list. And look at how small the differences are between many of these schools. My data shows OrSU #7 in the P12, which seems fine to me.
UL looks like an outlier, but this includes the years of Lamar Jackson when UL was a top 10 team and playing exciting football. They also got the ratings bonus of playing Clemson and FSU every year, something Clemson can’t get.
Is UVA #15? Out of 36? As in, mediocre? Yes, I can believe that. #14-22 are all basically tied. Basically, they topped BC and the NC schools. Duke and WF can’t be surprises to be low, so it’s just UNC and NCSU.
UVA:
2016 – played UO OOC
2017 – made a bowl, played BSU and IN OOC
2018 – briefly were ranked, played IN OOC
2019 – won their division
2021 – played IL and BYU OOC
Recall that games against Clemson, FSU and Miami are included for the ACC. Who played them how many times could skew the ACC results somewhat. I think UVA had 3 ABC games that counted in this analysis (2 vs VT, 1 vs #2 Miami). UNC had 3 (1 vs Cal, 1 vs WF, 1 vs #1 Clemson). That Cal game hurt them – it drew 930k viewers. That’s terrible for an OTA network.
None of these lists are intended to be definitive rankings. And they certainly aren’t predictive.
LikeLike
I didn’t read the Mandel article, but I’m very dubious of these tv ratings analyses. There was one making the rounds that had total garbage data, where every game on the SEC Network was being counted as 0 viewers because they don’t report ratings. That’s absolutely absurd. Missouri, for example, played 9 out of 13 games on the SEC Network. All of those games got counted as 0 viewers. They averaged over 2 million viewers per game in the remaining 4, but somehow their average was counted as only 400k viewers. Which is completely wrong. In reality it was over a million viewers per game on average. I just don’t think a lot of quality analysis is being done on tv ratings. Very flawed.
Also, reality is, your ratings are largely just a matter of what channel they put you on. When Missouri was on ESPN or CBS they averaged about 3 million viewers per game. When they were on ESPNU it was about 500,000. I’m sure the same is true of all schools, I’m just using Missouri as an example because that’s the one I looked at. So anyway, the teams that get on ESPN, CBS, ABC are getting the best ratings. The ones on ESPNU, BTN, ESPN Network, FS1 are getting lower ratings. That’s really all there is to it. There’s no magic to it. Missouri had a couple of top 10 seasons about 8 years ago and got on ESPN and CBS a lot. Their TV ratings ranked very high nationally. They’ve struggled lately and are on the lesser networks more so they haven’t gotten as many viewers.
LikeLike
Also, reality is, your ratings are largely just a matter of what channel they put you on.
But the channel you’re on isn’t random. The networks get to choose the games they want, and they are not stupid about it.
LikeLike
Right. They pick the teams that are ranked high. When Missouri was top 25 or top 10, they got on ESPN and CBS all the time. When they went 6-6 they were mostly on SEC Network and ESPNU. So formula is you win, you get on the big networks, you get good ratings. In that order. That’s pretty much all there is to it.
LikeLike
PAC starting to push back on the Big 12
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-delusion-aside-the-big-12
I’ve looked hard at the Big 12 in recent weeks, trying to figure out whether a merger with the Pac-12 made sense (Answer: nope). I also examined the Big 12’s TV markets and wondered if there was a no-brainer target for the Pac-12 to poach (Answer: nope).
I also don’t think the Big 12 is a strong candidate to lure away any of the remaining Pac-12 universities. When I asked Pac-12 athletic directors about the possibility of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU leaving, I was told another round of defections was unlikely as long as Oregon and Washington remained in the Pac-12.
One current AD said: “I don’t know where all this ‘the Big 12 is better’ stuff is coming from. You wouldn’t trade our troubles for theirs.”
LikeLike
After the initial B1G invites to USC/UCLA the folks at Oregon and Washington were already packing their bags in anticipation of a B1G invite. If the PAC lost 4 teams they would be much weaker. That fear is why the other PAC schools were looking at the B12, induced as much by OR/WA as anything the B12 said. As the invites did not come and the fear died down any movement in either direction became unlikely. Even though the B12 GOR is expiring their exit fee is not. Besides having to pay a big exit fee, any school leaving would forfeit their share of the TX/OK exit fees.
LikeLike
I read everything on here but did not realize that exit fees do not expire with the GOR. Is this true of all conferences, some, or just the Big 12? Does anyone know the exit fees for the individual P5? I assume the SEC has none!
LikeLike
Yes, that’s correct. An exit fee is a conference rule that remains in place indefinitely unless changed. As it is merely a rule, it can be amended or rescinded whenever a sufficient number of members want. In contrast, a GOR is always for a specific term, linked to a media deal.
I am pretty sure the Big Ten and the SEC do not have exit fees, because they are not worried about anyone leaving.
LikeLike
SEC now has a hefty exit fee after adding Texas. It’s almost like they don’t trust the Horns.
“The SEC bylaws now assign a $30-45M exit fee (depending on circumstances) and at least two years’ notice to withdraw from the conference. Per the report, those new provisions were added to the bylaws back in January of 2021, so they’ve been in place for almost a year now.”
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-reportedly-adds-hefty-exit-fee-waiting-period-to-leave-league-to-conference-bylaws/
LikeLike
Most conferences have them. I do not know if the Big Ten still has one. I thought the SEC still had a $50 yearly membership fee and no exit fee.
LikeLike
largeR,
Click to access bylaws.pdf
When the B12 rewrote their bylaws in 2012, everyone agreed to be a member for 99 years or pay the exit fee.
The ACC charges 3 years worth of distributions, and I don’t think there’s an end date to that deal. The GOR is the far bigger penalty.
Many conferences have some sort of exit fee based on when you announce your exit, being little or nothing if you announce at least 2 years in advance. Mostly this is from the smaller conferences tired of needing to backfill on short notice.
I don’t think the B10 or SEC have exit fees. Those are for conferences people want to leave. they do have GORs, though.
LikeLike
Everybody look at Colin’s post above that notes that the SEC did add exit fees.
LikeLike
Frank, in the NY market, you left out the Mets and the Jets, each of which would ahead of any college team. NY has 9 pro teams. Two football teams and one hockey team in NJ. One hockey team back on Long Island. Two baseball, two basketball and one hockey team in NYC.
Remember the Bills are the only football team in NY State. That is frequently commented upon in the NY area. In fact, a few month ago some idiot fan sued the Giants and Jets for claiming that they are NY teams when they are not. Yes, anyone can filed suit for anything. (Or as someone said a million years ago in law school, one can sue the Bishop of Boston for bastardy.)
That probably leaves RU with a small outside shot at being #7, ahead of the hockey teams and maybe the Nets. I did not say that they were #7 yet, but it is aspirational (maybe) and a long way off. Being #7 in a market with 7.4 TV homes would be beyond huge. (By the way, the 7.4 million does not include the Philly market which covers South Jersey, with more than a million TV homes just in NJ. The RU market is really somewhere between 8.5 and 9 million TV homes.)
Since I now live in FL, I find the FSU and UCF numbers fascinating. UCF now has the largest undergraduate student body in the US – over 60,000. The Orlando media market is in the top 20 and growing very fast. I can attest to that growth since I am now in that market.
With all of that and a few great seasons, the UCF numbers are terrible. One problem is that they are number three among college teams in the Orlando market, behind UF and FSU. That will probably never change unless UCF wins a couple of national championships.
FSU on the other hand does not really seem to have suffered that much from their recent mediocrity. Texas A&M bought Jimbo Fisher with a $75 million ten year deal that FSU could not match. (And that was before TAMU was in the SEC). There was and is tremendous anger toward Fisher at FSU. He is viewed as being a traitor.
Since Fisher has gone, FSU coaches have been mediocre or worse and when the time comes to fire a coach, there is terrible hand wringing about the cost of buyouts.
SEC teams have no such worries. If they want to fire a coach, there is plenty of money.
This coming season, FSU had the number one ranked high school player in the country ready to sign, before Deon Sanders NIL money brought the kid to Jackson State. The number 1 player in the country was just what FSU needed to turn around to being a king again.
The standard assumption around here is that if the current FSU coach (Norvell) does not work out, FSU will ask Deon to come home and be the next coach.
LikeLike
The TV appeal of a school—or the lack of it—tends to persist over many years. That is why FSU outrates UCF, even though their recent results suggest it should be the opposite.
UCF has played football only since 1979, has been in FBS only since 1996, and didn’t attend its first bowl game until 2005. They simply have not had the many decades it takes to build up legions of fans whose parents and grandparents were fans too.
LikeLike
Also hard to overcome the natural prestige that flagships carry in terms of carrying the banner of a state.
Some states are large enough that multiple schools can carry the flag; but FSU is always going to have that aspect going for it versus UCF; there’s always going to be the aspect that a school that represents the whole state is more prominent/prestigious than a directional school that represents just a city/region of the state.
LikeLike
@ Frank – Your comment earlier that “there’s a pretty good chance that, at some point, the current Power 5 is going to turn into a very clear Power 4… and the Pac-12 needs to do everything that it can to make sure that it’s one of those P4 leagues as opposed to the Big 12.” is on point. I would say the same thing about the ACC long-term. There is probably going to be a Power 2 and Next 2 eventually. How much power the Next 2 have will depend on how large the B1G and SEC get and what the Next 2 look like as far as membership.
If the B1G and SEC remain at 16, I’d be very curious to get everyone’s take on what the “best” Next 2 conferences would look like. If everyone not in the B1G/SEC was a free agent what would the optimal Next 2 look like?
LikeLike
Wilner’s now pushing back. I wonder if there is some confidence building among the PAC teams
LikeLike
Wilner sounds more wishful than confident. https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/tv-ratings-suggest-the-pac-12-has-an-advantage-over-the-big-12-but-will-the-conference-come-out-swinging-this-week/ar-AAZWNro He talks about Mandel’s numbers, but ends like this:
“…Where do things stand?
Our sense is that Pac-12 presidents and chancellors would like a compelling reason to stick together and are waiting (perhaps weeks, maybe months) to determine whether that reason exists.
Based on media markets, football brands and TV ratings, it’s not obvious that the new Big 12 holds a significant enough strategic advantage over the new Pac-12 to spark a mass migration.
USC and UCLA will double their revenue in the Big Ten.
But would Oregon agree to send its teams to play UCF in Orlando for a few extra million dollars per year?
Would Arizona trek to West Virginia for money that won’t transform its budget?
More than three weeks into this storm, we don’t have enough clarity to draw conclusions.
Perhaps the Pac-12 will provide some this week….”
LikeLike
I think the only move among the ACC, B12 and Pac that moves the needle is a full-on merger between the Pac & ACC. That gets you a 24 team conference on both coasts that can utilize 2 Friday and 4 Saturday time slots and the ACCN gets carriage on the West Coast. The All Coastal Conference would include one King (Clemson), two former Kings (FSU & Miami), another Baron (Oregon), and a bunch of Knights (AZ State, Cal, GA Tech, Louisville, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Stanford, Utah & Washington). There would still be a lot of Peasants though.
Maybe that gets them to $50M per school? Limiting cross-country travel in all other sports other than conference tournaments could minimize travel costs.
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking that too. How do you envision it working? As I see it, if the PAC invites the entire ACC* Big 8 to Big 12 style, they could take everything to the open market. I’m sure ESPN would be less than thrilled about losing their undervalued ACC content in a merger and will probably tell the PAC they won’t be bidding (or not bidding aggressively in the hopes it won’t happen) on the new Costal Conference. Is there another network willing to make financial guarantees for it to work? Who’s going to put up $1.2 billion (24 x your $50 million) a year for the Costal?
If the ACC invites the PAC, then ESPN gets to be the sole bidder. To make your $50 million number ESPN would be shelling out an additional 1 billion dollars a year (current ACC is 17 million * 14 full members = 238 million) to bring all 24 up to $50 million. That’s a pretty big bump for some potential UO/WU/ASU/UU/CU vs UM/FSU/Clem/UNC cross over games.
*Ignoring the risks of anyone ending up in the SEC/Big Ten
LikeLike
I don’t think mixing apples and oranges creates diamonds. Pac and ACC just don’t mix. The ACCN is not the BTN or SECN. Might be a case if 2+2=3,5,
The only potential value would be market power from having a combined negotiating position. But with the ACC locked up until 2036, that is a negative for the Pac.
LikeLike
Alan,
Or they could just include the 14 schools you named (football-only?), and get paid a lot more. How much value do the other 10 bring?
LikeLike
Short term they can’t do that, but if the Pac-12 stays together, then yes long-term it is a possibility.
LikeLike
True, but they also can’t get $50M per school with that lineup. But the top 8 ACC schools can apparently dissolve the conference, then get the P12 to do the same and have those 14 form a new conference.
The bigger issue is that the top ACC brands would get taken by the B10 and SEC. The ones that are left aren’t valuable enough to get paid $50M per school either.
LikeLike
Yeah agreed, I think it’ll be cleaner if they push this to 2036, say the Pac-12 signs a 12 year tv deal + 12 year GOR.
2036 is when everything can change for both the ACC/Pac-12 to try to maximize the tv revenue.
LikeLike
There’s a reason we’ve never seen a full merger in the modern era of FBS.
Leaving behind the least valuable schools is a necessary requirement to create additional value for the remaining schools.
Every conference move the last 30-35 years has been about that. If there is an ACC absorption of Pac-12 schools it will look like the Big 12 formation where the Big 8 and 4 Texas schools joined together leaving behind the remaining Texas schools.
I hate to say it but I don’t see how all 10 Pac-12 schools are involved if the ACC decides to go West.
The Big Ten in the past month just took USC/UCLA in a move out West; even somebody like me who favored such a move thought it would be upwards to 4 or 6 schools. Instead the absolute revenue per school maximizing move of 2 schools to take the LA market/plant a flag in California was the Big Ten’s choice.
The ACC is desperate to maximize value for itself; I don’t see how they go far beyond the absolute revenue per school maximizing move here given the tough situation they’re in looking out to the mid-2030s when several schools may get Big Ten/SEC offers.
The only move here for the ACC is Washington/Oregon and maybe 2-4 others to reduce travel costs on both sides. If I’m looking explicitly at revenue maximization, I’d only take Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona State or Arizona, Colorado, Utah. Maybe if Stanford requires Cal, you take Cal and drop Utah.
Either way, this is survival of the fittest, put the financial numbers together and maximize the revenue per school just as the SEC and Big Ten did. That means leaving behind 4 of the Pac-12 schools.
You don’t want the Pac schools playing 9 games against each other, you want them playing 5 games against each other and then 4 crossover “national” games. This is the same reason why the Big Ten won’t take more than another 1-3 schools out West; the crossover games between brands is where the money is.
LikeLike
For a moment, let’s ignore current media deals, and just look at intrinsic value. Brian’s stats suggest there is not much difference among the Pac-12, Big XII, and ACC legacy schools. This means there is probably not the huge bump the Pac schools would require to accept the drawbacks of being minority members in a conference three time zones away.
Long-term, the ACC might not want these schools either. We are only talking about it as a back-door to get ESPN to re-negotiate the ACC’s terrible media deal, and nobody even knows if that would work (legally).
I’d only take Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Arizona State or Arizona, Colorado, Utah.
If we are talking survival of the fittest, then why are the bottom ACC schools getting a golden ticket while Washington State gets kicked to the curb. WSU’s numbers are far better than Wake Forest’s.
LikeLike
Because it’s easier for a Pac school to get out of the PAC’s deal than it is for an ACC school to get out of the ACC deal.
LikeLike
Because the ACC has a 14 years left on its GOR and everybody thinks there’s no way to toss out schools.
Go that route and the best of the ACC are all out anyways. Might as well enjoy the last 14 years left on that ride?
LikeLike
Well, the whole point I am trying to make is that the parties are exceedingly unlikely to make such a deal for 14 years, even if they could get away with it legally (which they probably cannot).
LikeLike
You’re right but I think that just makes the case for the Pac-12 signing a 12 year media deal.
LikeLike
Disney came within a hair’s breadth of purchasing the UFC back in ’16, before a sleepless night (of snapping tibias no doubt) convinced Iger to pull the plug. Fast forward six years, and they’ve ended up paying their nixed offer in licensing fees. With live entertainment now taking center stage in the streaming wars, will they now make amends by pulling the trigger on the WWE? Is Goofy ready to take the Superman Punch of Roman Reigns? I actually heard today that Netflix might take a swing at it 😂. That would be hilarious.The times, they are a changin’, and college football isn’t about to be left on the streaming sidelines. -WHO’S WITH ME!…….(crickets)
LikeLike
It’d be great if wrestling got moved to some streamer. Gets that crap off my TV screen. And the UFC can go with it.
LikeLike
…Another happy customer!
LikeLike
It is being reported that ESPN offered the PAC $24.5 million per school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBwX-DyV10 If true, it is a lowball open by ESPN.
LikeLike
Ouch. That’s terrible, if true. But they can still go to open market and hope someone else drives that up. Clearly it shows Fox has no interest.
But from a B10 point of view, that says that maybe even more of the P12’s value was in USC and UCLA. So the B10 should expect an even bigger payout.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t shock me given the PAC has next to no leverage right now.
LikeLike
All of this has gotten me thinking, like Brian/Marc mention above, what if the endgame here is a 3rd “football driven” superconference.
What if Washington/Oregon commit to stay in the Pac-12 through 2036. They line up their deals and sign a GOR to match the ACC.
Then in 2032-2033 when the Big Ten/SEC start poaching schools from the ACC, the remaining football brands group up and create a new conference that starts in 2036.
That’s a really long-term plan and obviously nobody at any school can think that far ahead, leadership at the presidential/AD level will likely turn over 2 times at every school between now and then.
But still, if they want to give themselves the most optionality maybe that’s the play.
If the Big Ten/SEC leave behind schools like Washington, Oregon, Miami, Clemson, Va Tech, NC State, Pitt, WVU, etc. you have the makings of a decent “3rd superconference”.
Assuming none of these end up in the Big Ten or SEC
Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, NC State, Va Tech, Pitt, WVU, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah and maybe call over Cincy or OkSU or Texas Tech or TCU or Houston if you need to fill spots and try to plant flags in markets.
It’s hard to get that many people on the same page, but I think if the Pac-12 lines up its next deal to end around the same time as the ACC, that’s a possibility.
At the end of the day, schools are going to ask themselves “why are we subsidizing Wake Forest or Oregon State or Kansas State” if we’re falling way behind the Big Ten/SEC. Maybe that Frankenstein “superconference” can’t keep up with the Big Ten/SEC but everybody will be pulling their share in there.
LikeLike
And of course, that 3rd “superconference” can offer ND a landing spot for 5 games and their non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s MBB is in the ACC along with all its other sports except hockey (B1G). Suppose Notre Dame gets a new contract with NBC for $75 million for its football, that probably freezes them in the ACC until 2036.
Is there any compelling reason for the B1G or SEC to expand beyond their current 16? Is there any reason for schools to jump between the Big 12 or PAC 10? I Will any school voluntarily join the ACC with its absurd TV contract and absurd GOR?
I am going to say, No. Imthink the dance is over until 2036.
LikeLike
Yeah next moves will start popping up 2031-2033 as the Big Ten/SEC poke around at ACC schools in all likelihood.
LikeLike
Yes, ditto. If ND stays independent, it probably freezes major conference moves until the 2030s.
LikeLike
ESPN lowballing Pac-12 is the only reasonable strategy for them (if true obviously, have to take everything with a grain of salt based on who and where leaks are popping up. Big 12 media blasting out the Pac-12 getting low balled serves their own rooting interest).
1) They’re telling the Pac-12 that they won’t be financing Pac-12 expansion. Big 12 schools have $80+ million exit fee at the moment (would go down presumably if/when next rights deal comes up since it’s 2 years of rights).
2) The ACC is targeting Pac-12 schools, and they want a renegotiation of their deal. If ESPN had bid above what they currently pay the ACC, then ESPN would struggle to tell the ACC that any additions to their conference would only be at pro-rata rates.
3) The Big 12 media is throwing around those (laughable) Navigate figures showing them somehow in the $40-50 million range per year despite the loss of Texas/OU.
ESPN is sending a message to all 3 with this low-ball of the Pac-12: Nobody’s getting free money from realignment this time.
Of course, Amazon and Apple will get to have their say too; would not surprise me if Pac-12 or Big 12 go to Amazon or Apple for a hefty portion of their rights at a significantly higher price than ESPN (or FOX if they bid on the Big 12) would be willing to pay.
Pac-12 in particular should put its 3rd tier on Apple TV+; nobody was watching it before with only 13 million subs on the Pac-12Ns, just take the Apple overpay and close out that mess.
Ironically, ESPN’s low-ball should make it more likely in the future that the remaining brands try to create a 3rd “super” conference from the remains of the ACC, Pac-12, and maybe Big 12 later on…; that’s the only way for schools like Washington, Oregon, Miami, Va Tech, who get left behind to get any value on their rights. Washington/Oregon should push for a 12 year TV deal with Apple or Amazon (even at lower exposure but that keeps them financially competitive) and then blow up both conferences in 2036 and create a new one.
LikeLike
This perhaps over-analyzing it. ESPN’s exclusivity window is merely a short time when no other networks can bid. To get the Pac-12 to sign now, they’d need to offer an impossibly high figure — and why do that? Maybe for a tentpole franchise that they must retain at all costs, which clearly does not apply to the Pac-12.
By bidding low now, ESPN does not preclude any possibilities, including paying more for expansion: they are just waiting to see what the Pac-12 is really worth. No network is going to take the entire Pac-12 away from them. It will still be there in a few months, and then both parties will have a very good idea where the market stands.
LikeLike
Yeah I think it’s clear that to get fuller value, Apple or Amazon may have to take the primary part of the package.
Sort of like what happened with the Big Ten when ESPN was low-balling and they gave the primary part of the rights to FOX and ESPN took the remainder at a discount.
With FOX not in the game, it comes down to who else bids. CBS or NBC may be open (but NBC might prefer Big 12 time windows for ND).
I think the time is ripe for Apple or Amazon to take the lions share of one of these conferences especially if ESPN and FOX play hardball.
LikeLike
I have no idea how active NBC wants to be, but they have just 7 ND games a year: typically 4–5 in the afternoon and 2–3 at night. The weeks they have ND, they can put on the Pac-12 in prime time if the Irish play in the afternoon, or vice versa. And that still leaves half the season that they currently do not have any game at all.
If NBC wants to be a destination network for CFB, they could easily have ND plus a choice of games from both the Big XII and the Pac-12. They could blanket the airwaves from noon to late night. When ND doesn’t monopolize the afternoon, NBC could have a B12 noon game, a B1 or Pac-12 3:30 game, and a night game—just like ESPN. They could even put on a Pac-12 after-dark game the weeks Saturday Night Live is on hiatus.
Again, no idea how much of a player NBC wants to be, but the opportunity is there.
LikeLike
Yeah the issue is just financially, NBC and CBS have been very stingy on their contracts so far.
They both have had incredible deals for ND and SEC respectively the entire time they’ve been in cfb. After decades of sweetheart deals, are they ready to pay a lot more for either comparable product or somewhat more for a lesser product?
This is the first time where they have to pay actual market rates to get premium content and for NBC in particular given they’ve shuttered NBC Sports (could use USA channel I guess), it’s just interesting to see whether either is really interested in trying to compete with the much bigger outlays that ESPN, FOX and possibly Amazon/Apple will be putting into college sports.
LikeLike
Marc: “When ND doesn’t monopolize the afternoon, NBC could have a B12 noon game, a B12 or Pac-12 3:30 game, and a night game—just like ESPN.”
I flat-out don’t buy it. Showing games like West Virginia-UCF, Oklahoma State-Texas Tech or Washington-Cal is not going to bring viewers to NBC when the other networks are showing the best games of the Big Ten and SEC.
LikeLike
It’s more cost effective for NBC to show reruns of SNL than get slaughtered in primetime with a B12 matchup of WVU-OK State going against a Penn State white out game or any variety of SEC matchup.
LikeLike
Since there is a certain % of TV viewers that do not care for college football NBC showing SNL reruns is not only cheaper but could produce better ratings than a 3rd rate game against SEC / B1G competition.
LikeLike
If NBC loses out on the B10, they could add B12 games in the early slot, Pac games in the evening (either in the late afternoon when ND isn’t playing at home) or both.
I believe ND will have to switch to 3:30 Eastern home start times if they want a TV deal comparable to the B10 payout.
LikeLike
“If NBC loses out on the B10, they could add B12 games in the early slot, Pac games in the evening (either in the late afternoon when ND isn’t playing at home) or both.”
I’m not sure that everyone understands NBC’s situation. If they don’t get the B10, they’ll be showing B12 and Pac games head to head with B10 and SEC games. And 50% of the time, when ND has an away game, NBC will also be competing with Notre Dame. On those days, NBC will be showing B12 and Pac against the B10 and the SEC and all of their faithful Irish fans will be tuned into whatever network is showing the ND game.
LikeLike
Colin:
NBC would be paying a fraction of the costs for a fraction of the audience.
It’s a defensible strategy.
LikeLike
“NBC would be paying a fraction of the costs for a fraction of the audience.”
If they wanted a small audience, NBC could show reruns of SNL and the movie “Heidi” and it wouldn’t cost them anything.
LikeLike
NBC would be paying a fraction of the costs for a fraction of the audience. It’s a defensible strategy.
That’s it exactly. There is surely some price at which those games are worth showing. As long as you do not overpay, it’s a defensible strategy.
LikeLike
If ESPN had bid above what they currently pay the ACC, then ESPN would struggle to tell the ACC that any additions to their conference would only be at pro-rata rates.
The Pac-12 schools are not joining the ACC regardless. Let X be a number greater than ESPN now pays the ACC. If ESPN offers the Pac-12 X on its own, then why join another conference to get the same thing?
The only way any Pac-12 schools would join the ACC is if the sum of the parts is far greater than its constituents. As bullet put it yesterday, you’d need to add apples and oranges, and somehow come up with diamonds.
LikeLike
z33k,
Those Navigate numbers are total payouts, including an expanded CFP and the NCAA tournament.
B12:
2022: $40.6M
2023: $41.8M
2024: $43.1M
2025: $44.3M
2026: $52.6M (would’ve been $45.6M, so +$7.0M from new deal + CFP)
P12:
2022: $34.4M
2023: $35.5M
2024: $36.6M
2025: $42.6M (would’ve been $37.7M, so +$4.9M from new deal)
2026: $57.5M (would’ve been $43.9M, so +$13.6M from CFP)
ACC:
2022: $30.9M
2023: $36.3M
2024: $37.9M
2025: $39.6M
2026: $54.3M (would’ve been $40.8M, so +$13.5M from CFP)
From their CFP estimates, the P12 will get 1.6 teams per year, the B12 will get 1.5, and the ACC 1.4. Since they assumed that partially impacts payouts, we should see very similar CFP bonuses.
ACC +$13.5M
P12 +$13.6M
B12 +$7.0M
The B12 number only makes sense if the CFP is +$13.6 but the change in members plus new TV deal is -$6.6M. The P12 deal went up $4.9M on a smaller deal, so the B12 nominally should’ve gone up about $5.9M just from a new deal. That means the membership change was worth about -$12.5M per school (-$150M total).
Current CFP value per school:
ACC: $7M
B12: $10M
P12: $9M
This is based on roughly equal distribution to each conference, then divided equally among members. The 14-team ACC gets less per school than the 12-team P12 or 10-team B12. The NCAA tournament pays maybe half that much. You can subtract those 2 values from the total payouts shown above to get a ballpark of the TV deal value in 2025.
Estimated TV deals (tiers 1-3) in 2025:
P12: $29.1M
B12: $32.8M
ACC: $27.6M
That’s my rough numbers based on Navigate’s data and method.
Remember, this includes all the changes to the B12 and SEC, but not USC and UCLA leaving the P12. I think they underestimated the P12’s TV deal growth since tier 3 should’ve taken a jump in value, but then it will drop with the loss of USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
I understand that financial math, but it doesn’t make sense to me outside of the fact that the Big 12 is a “power conference” in name once Texas/OU leave.
I just don’t see what markets/brands are left in there. Oklahoma State or WVU are their biggest brands.
BYU just a half decade ago signed their TV rights for around $5 million a year. The other 3 were part of a conference that just signed a $7 million a year deal.
How are those schools going to be worth $30 million a year each joined to Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State.
If I represented any media side of that negotiation table, I’d just burst out laughing if they ask for >$20 million a year per team. I’m not sure I’d even be willing to offer that much, that’d be a maximum offer
I’d probably start at $15-18 million a year.
LikeLike
z33k,
https://theathletic.com/3215360/2022/03/29/will-the-power-5-soon-become-the-power-2-unpacking-new-tv-revenue-projections-for-a-12-team-cfp-world/
It’s not 100% clear how they do their calculations for membership changes. Maybe they explained it in The Athletic article that accompanied some of their work.
Their basic method for new TV deals is based on how other TV rights have grown, so it’s something like +40-50% for a new deal I believe.
I don’t know how they assigned values to each school. Did they follow their brand value work they published (with #5 OU, #9 WVU, and #10 UT)? Did they use another method?
Others have said UT + OU was about 50% of the value in the B12. The current B12 deal pays about $28M per school ($280M). That makes it $140M without OU and UT. Then add $X for the 4 newbies. Assume a new TV deal is worth $32.8M per school ($394M). That puts the old one at about $262M (assuming 50% bump). That would make the 4 newbies worth $122M, or $30.5M per school.
I think the keys here are the market assumptions. If Navigate says TT + TCU + UH + Baylor keeps the TX market almost like UT did, and if they get a lot of credit for Orlando, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City, then I guess it make some sort of sense. For broadcast purposes they are still in all the TX markets plus they add Orlando, SLC, Cincy, + some chunks of UT, OH and FL. My guess is that they are getting too much credit for FL and TX.
I want to be clear that I’m not supporting Navigate’s work, I just wanted to clarify that their $40-50M numbers are for total payouts, including an expanded CFP.
LikeLike
Yeah I have no problem with your math.
I just think the assumptions Navigate was using for how much of the media dollars the conference will keep are faulty.
There’s a point where a conference is just a bunch of replacement G5 schools + 2 power brands, that’s where the Big 12 was in my opinion.
I can be completely wrong on this, but I would venture that Texas/OU were probably worth even more than 50% of that media deal.
I think they were literally the entire difference between the Big 12 being a little better than the AAC and where it was.
In which case the remaining schools are worth less than $20 million a year for TV rights.
I can (probably) be wrong but I’m just skeptical they’ll keep much of the Texas market and add all that much of the Florida market and whatever else they’re looking at.
The amount of eyeballs on the Big Ten and SEC will make it hard for anybody else to get traction.
We’re not used to an environment like what we’re going to see past 2024.
LikeLike
I think using rough math, the new B12 should be worth at least $20M.
The old deal value the remaining 8 schools at $14M each roughly. The newbies are currently getting half that or less, but that’s at least partly because of their conference mates. They can’t be worth much less than KU football. So let’s say the newbies are worth $10M each (need time to build their brands up to median in the B12).
New B12 value = 8*14 + 4*10 = $152M = $12.7M * 1.5 (new deal jump) = $19M
I’ll round that to $20M, but maybe the newbies are actually worth more than that $10M. I could see a deal in the low 20s, maybe mid-20s if there’s a bit of a bidding war.
LikeLike
The biggest point in the B12’s favor is that TX (and the other B12 states to a large extent too, though they tend to be small) looooves football of all kinds. Just look at the 2021 B12 title game, which didn’t have either OU or Texas and has 2 teams that didn’t make the playoffs but drew nearly twice as many viewers as the Pac CCG (which has UO) and more than 3 times as many viewers as the ACC CCG.
Though that is really the B12’s only strong point.
LikeLike
The fact that OU/UT haven’t yet joined the SEC has less to do with the GOR than it does with the SEC contract with CBS. There is no language in that contract to escalate the payout from CBS for adding schools to the conference. That contract expires after 2023. In 2024 the CBS contract will be replaced by a much more lucrative ESPN contract that includes an escalator clause should the SEC add certain schools.
If OU/UT don’t begin SEC play in 2024 it will be a sign that the GOR was strong enough to hold them back. I expect them to join in 2025 after the GOR has expired. I also expect the conference exit fee to be negotiated downward to about $20 million (current distributions suggest the full exit fee would be near $80 million).
LikeLike
What incentive does the B12 have to negotiate down the exit fee, especially a 75% discount? It is not like the rest of the teams are undamaged by TX/OK leaving. The B12 commissioner has already said they are open to a TX/OK early exit for a price, so it is possible that they join the SEC in 2024.
LikeLike
You are 100% correct.
Right now the fee is 2 years of withheld distributions + GOR.
Negotiating down the GOR by a year probably means adding more money even if they try to somehow negotiate the exit fee down.
Big 12 isn’t going to give away the game here.
LikeLike
That CBS deal is tiny. $55M/14 teams = $3.93M. $55M/16 teams = $3.44M. You think UT and OU are not moving over that little amount? They could just agree not to take any CBS money to keep the SEC whole, since they’d still be getting a big pay raise.
CBS won’t increase the deal for expansion because it’s for the #1 game each week. How much do OU and UT actually improve that game for CBS? And since the SEC is leaving them anyway, why do them a favor? But even CBS might pay the extra $7.86M to the SEC to keep them whole for a chance at a few UT and OU games.
Both the schools and the SEC have said they’ll move in 2025 and have mentioned the GOR. The rest of the B12 has zero incentive to let them go early, but anything can be had for the right price.
Exit fees often get negotiated down, but I don’t think they will in this case. It’s a lot of money for schools facing a potential drop in revenue.
LikeLike
Frank, quick observation regarding Stanford and its recruiting of Olympic level athletes. With their academic reputation and insane amounts of money, it is not hard for Stanford to recruit.
A couple of years ago, the son of a friend of mine was on the US under 17 men’s gymnastic team. Of the five top gymnasts on the team, four accepted full scholarships to Stanford. That is even better recruiting than Duke or KY basketball.
My friend lived in Oklahoma and was, of course, offered by UOk, but there was no way to turn down the Stanford degree.
LikeLike
That’s not only true of Olympic sports either.
In football, they are the clear #1 for academic prestige seeking 4-5 star recruits. It’s why they bring on 6-10 4+ star recruits every year
They win a big share of the academically minded top talents in cfb; it’s been that way since Harbaugh.
If you’re a college football player with high SATs/gpa that cares about getting a prestigious degree, they win that battle against ND and the rest.
The fact is, there’s always going to be upwards to 20 of those recruits every year, the lion’s share go straight to Stanford.
LikeLike
A decent number still choose ND for the greater exposure and success.
LikeLike
Agreed for sure on that, but just from what I’ve seen of recruiting Northwestern has lost more of the 1400+ SAT/high GPA recruits to Stanford than anyone else in cfb.
Northwestern has beat out ND for a few of them, but whenever Stanford’s in the mix, it almost always goes Stanford.
And I fully understand that. Anybody that’s choosing Stanford against anybody else in CFB, their degree is just different.
They’re on the Harvard, Yale, Princeton tier of schools where those 4 schools have so much prestige that it outweighs everything else.
LikeLike
And it’s SF weather not Chicago weather. And Silicon Valley is right there to hire you. And you don’t have to wear purple and black uniforms (probably not a major concern).
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie – Right – I think people that think that Stanford would use an Ivy League model for sports aren’t understanding that Stanford IS recruiting the very top of elite athletes across the board and very intentionally so. This is a school that goes after – and gets – mega-accomplished athletes like Tiger Woods and Katie Ledecky and they’re looking for potential national champions and Olympians. Heck, even in football, Stanford has won 2 Rose Bowls and appeared in a third Rose Bowl in the past decade, which is more than what USC and Texas have accomplished during that timeframe. It boggles my mind whenever I see someone suggest that Stanford would “deemphasize sports” because they clearly aren’t looking at how the school intentionally goes after the very top of the elite in every sport.
It’s a similar thing with Duke. They recruit basketball players EXACTLY like Kentucky and are more than willing to play the NIL compensation game to the fullest. (Frankly, I think basketball is really where the NIL money is going to end up mattering more even compared to football.) They look at sports in a totally different manner than the Ivy League.
LikeLike
I would be a bit shocked if the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford eventually even without Notre Dame. They have a great athletic department and I would imagine that every school in the Big Ten would love to partner with Stanford on research and academic projects. I understand they may not bring in the TV money but they are off the charts everywhere else especially in areas that get university presidents excited.
LikeLike
Schools do not partner in research. All research dollars at every schools is obtained by faculty members who submit proposals to research funding agencies like the National Science Foundation. Schools do charge overhead (which is a real cost), and they do skim some of it for seed research and for areas with no funding, like gender studies.
There is a myth that schools fund research out of endowment or something, but they don’t. Schools like Stanford do not use endowment for sports, either. Almost all endowments are committed to some special project, like and endowed chair in some area. Very little of the endowment is free to use for any purpose.
LikeLike
Very true.
But NSF (and others) is pushing for more collaborative projects, bringing in people/centers at multiple schools. And overhead is ridiculously large for those who don’t know – over 50%.
LikeLike
Oh, I also wanted to point out a source for some of the confusion.
Stanford (and others) has endowed most (if not all) of their athletic scholarships at this point, I believe. This is through separate fundraising, not using the school’s endowment, but some fans may get confused by the terminology.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
Money gets presidents excited. In sports, that means TV money. Having Stanford in the B10 would provide trips to SF alumni (for fundraising) as well, but after that their direct financial value is limited.
Schools collaborate on research where expertise and facilities make sense. Stanford is far enough away they don’t do a ton with many B10 schools, and being in the B10 wouldn’t change that. Most faculty are barely aware that sports exist. The people that matter in research see each other at conferences – that’s where research collaborations come from.
LikeLike
Frank,
I do think it’s fair for people to speculate whether or not Stanford would be wiling to fully pay players as employees. NIL and recruiting and competing are one thing, but true professionalization is a different animal. That may be a place Stanford (and others like them) won’t go. I’m not saying they won’t, just that I think it’s a legitimate point of discussion.
.
After all, even the B10 has said they would de-emphasize sports before they would pay student-employees to play. It doesn’t mean it’s true, but it does reflect the fact that some schools would think about the issue. Faculties might push back. When you look at AD debt and add the price of players, some schools may not have a choice. Then you could have I-A (paid players), I-AA (unpaid players), I-AAA (I-AA now – fewer scholarships).
LikeLike
But Stanford will not follow CFB into an “employee” model if that’s where the B1G and SEC are headed.
LikeLike
Don’t be so sure about anything.
LikeLike
Leaders in college athletics have a long history of saying they would never do a thing, only to later do precisely that thing.
LikeLike
But Stanford will not follow CFB into an “employee” model
Doubt. Stanford wants to keep their world class athletic department running, and football pays for it all.
LikeLike
Peter,
Just to be clear, this isn’t something the B10 and SEC want. They’d have the most expensive teams. Professionalism would be driven by the courts declaring that athletes are employees and must be paid. Conference affiliation will not protect from that.
Presumably the courts would set some limits of which school must pay (D-III? I’d think not. I-AA? Probably not. G5? Maybe – they get CFP money too.), or under what conditions players become employees so schools could get beneath those conditions.
It would be interesting to see if the court declare that CFB and MBB must pay players, if large groups of school just drop both sports (or stop taking NCAA tournament money) to avoid paying.
Until we see the legal framework, it’s hard to say what Stanford will or won’t do because we don’t know what the law would demand of them.
LikeLike
I very much doubt this Supreme Court would hold that D-I athletes are employees. One justice, writing only for himself, hinted in that direction in Alston, but Gorsuch — writing for the majority — wrote that the court isn’t equipped to resolve the conundrum of amateur athletics. Equally as important is the tension between the profit that maybe 50 schools make from college football, much more modest profit that some make in basketball, and pretty much every other college sport everywhere, which lose money. And then there’s Title IX to grapple with. The courts aren’t going to resolve all of that, and all the moreso with players now profiting handsomely in some instances via NIL.
Football players will become paid, non-student employees if/when some colleges decide that’s how they want to roll, but courts won’t make them do that.
LikeLike
The court makes lots of decisions that impact things they aren’t equipped to resolve. Frankly, that’s 99% of what they do. They can also choose not to hear a case a federal judge decides on this issue. Congress has the power to fix this, but they are completely useless. The NLRB almost allowed players to unionize at private schools before. That’s all it takes for the problems to start.
There are zero schools that want to call players employees. The financial and legal ramifications of that would be staggering. It would have to be forced on them, and the courts/NLRB would be the ones that do it.
LikeLike
Warren in his press conference said they would announce the new TV deal sooner rather than later. That, to me, is an indication that Notre Dame is staying independent for now.
LikeLike
Warren says USC and UCLA will receive full media shares in their first year of membership.
LikeLike
And the B10 is done expanding for now. The P12 can relax for a 10-12 years.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA will receive full revenue shares in their first year
LikeLike
It makes complete sense that USC/UCLA are getting immediate full shares while the prior 3 did not. NE, UMd and RU were really strategic moves by Delany that significantly helped the three schools, probably as much as or more than they helped the league.
NE was happy to find a new home and got an immediate increase in income. They were an available football king contiguous to B1G territory. While NE had fans, the State of NE is simply not that big, so they did not bring millions of TV sets.
UMd and RU were a move to grab the mid-Atlantic while it was available. Those two schools alone added 40 plus million people to the footprint of the B1G, and gave Penn State a couple of eastern playmates. At the time, there were rumors that PSU was not happy with the B1G. Presumably, Delany viewed this as a way satisfy PSU while helping the league population base grow dramatically.
UMd was in fairly serious financial trouble and was guaranteed that they would immediately make more than they did in the ACC, with much bigger payouts in the future. That was the trade off for giving up its traditional ACC rivals.
Then there was RU, which was making about 11 cents per year for its rights in the collapsing Big East. It was very easy for Delany to promise an immediate increase. It will ultimately take RU nearly 15 years to pay off all loans and ramp up to keeping a full share (2027), but compared to the alternative, that is a minor miracle.
RU was hoping to be saved by a life raft and wound up in a suite on the Queen Mary. If RU had even a solid mediocre football team, they probably would have started with much closer to a full share up front.
The B1G had no reason to offer any of the three full shares up front. They each had one important thing, but not everything.
USC and UCLA are different. They control the country’s 2nd biggest TV market and both are kings of one sort or another. USC football and UCLA basketball add to the B1G in major ways. Full shares make sense. It sure seems as if the two will immediately pay for themselves, so why try to be cheap with them.
LikeLike
“Admiral, there be whales here!”
– Mr. Scott, “Star Trek IV – The Voyage Home”
As FTT opined in a separate, previous posting, the B1G and the SEC have swallowed proverbial whales in USC, UCLA, TX, OK. It’s going to take time to digest and plan for the coming changes, and not just for football.
Kevin Warren now says the B1G will only expand “for the right reasons at the right time.” Well. “Think like a university president” holds true until stepping into fantastical sums of money. At that point the calculus is driven by the cold, hard realities of profit/loss margins.
Current projections have each school in those future 16-team conferences pulling in $100M+ each by 2030 – virtually all of it from tv revenue; streaming will only be additive. That’s become the buy-in ante.
Put simply, the B1G & SEC have priced themselves out of the conference realignment market.
There is not one team in either the ACC or the PAC that commands that kind of individual revenue generation, either now or in 2030. And to date, no one has produced any financial-based projections changing that reality.
ND might make sense for the B1G, but adding a realignment partner would be dilutive; neither Stanford nor UNC nor any foursome combination changes that math.
The B1G and SEC will stay at 16 for the next several decades, ND will stay independent, & everyone else will jockey for 3rd place.
To paraphrase FTT, there are no more whales out there to be had, even in 2036. (On the bright side, we won’t see any alien probes hell-bent on destroying Earth because of it.)
LikeLike
I still think UNC is a whale because of how strategic North Carolina (population size/growth/strength of brand in state and outside) is in this game of conference realignment Risk.
Most here would probably agree.
And Florida State is also a whale because it delivers its whole state and is a national brand.
Both those I think are pretty secure and will have spots in the Big Ten and/or SEC.
The rest of the ACC I’m less sure about, Clemson is a big brand now but from a small state.
Miami delivers a solid portion of Florida and is a national brand but also a much smaller private school than USC. But it has a good t-shirt fanbase.
Financially you make it work by lining up the deals and making sure FOX or whoever gives you a pro-rata increase for taking those schools.
So yeah, I still think we see movement in 2031-2032.
I would be shocked if both Big Ten and SEC didn’t go hard at UNC.
LikeLike
Of course there’s interest in UVA, UNC, FSU, Clemson, etc. Not denying that.
All of us here are fans who like to play Conference Realignment Risk where we’ll take a school here or that school over there. But in the end, “delivers a state” and “brand names” are just platitudes the fans are using. What matters is the amount of good ole greenbacks, particularly given where conference realignment decisions have gone.
The SEC already has FL and SC. Given that all those TV sets already carry the SEC, please show the analysis concluding that FSU and Clemson will each bring $100M in new revenue to the SEC. Same goes for Miami – in fact, press reports indicate absolutely no one has called them to gauge their interests.
I live in VA, within that alleged VA/NC “battleground” between the B1G and the SEC. I am not particularly worried for UVA/UNC, but clearly our viewerships are nowhere near B1G/SEC levels. I have yet to see any analysis here showing our schools will each bring $100M to the revenue table.
I’m not the one who first speculated that there are no more whales out there. But I am saying the price for membership has gone up to being out of reach for the semi-whales – and nothing said here to date has said otherwise.
LikeLike
But it’s not as simple as just a raw financial calculation of a single school or schools in a vacuum as to how much $ they generate for sports.
So much goes into this about timing, increase in value of sports rights, when the contract is signed relative to the market situation, etc.
What evidence do you have though that expansion would stop now?
I can guarantee you that if the ACC GOR ended now, there’d be an all out blitz for UNC (and UVA in tow).
I’ve speculated above that financially the increase in MBB for the Big Ten may be enough to justify all 3 of UNC, UVA, and Duke.
How? Because the Big Ten would probably approach something like 60-70% of all MBB games that have big viewership potential based on conference matchups. That’s a point where you can monopolize the product in terms of pricing.
i.e. A 16 team Big Ten charges $15 million per school for MBB but a 20 team Big Ten charges $30 million per school for MBB because there’s no other seller that can guarantee the matchups the Big Ten would be able to with UCLA + UNC + UVA + Duke. Even ESPN would be forced to buy a chunk of that or get shut out of big game MBB.
There’s just a qualitative difference between a seller of 40% of big MBB games versus a seller of 60-70%.
There’s lot of ways to make this work financially and the strategic aspects of demographics and such are equally important.
LikeLike
“But it’s not as simple as just a raw financial calculation of a single school or schools in a vacuum as to how much $ they generate for sports.”
Of course it is. The other factors you cite are important to deciding logistics and timing, but in the end teams like USC, UCLA, A&M, MO, TX, OK, UMD, and WVU abandoned “traditional rivals” and cultural relationships etc purely to enhance their future financial fortunes.
LikeLike
Sure, but my broader point was that the Big Ten can likely add UNC, UVA, and Duke in a way that would financially not shrink the slices of the pie (especially if that MBB product can be monopolized in part).
LikeLike
I do not think so, sorry. MBB & demographics would be part of the appeal to bring in UVA/UNC/Duke, but that’s in part because their football…. well, ain’t the strongest. (But we have good barbecue!) This is expecially true in Duke’s case.
The math is there for everyone to see. Should the B1G add 3 more programs (2 of which would split the revenue brought in from NC) to participate in what’s currently projected to be perhaps a $1.7B pot, there is no way to not reduce the pie for everyone – unless the pitch to those new schools is a phased-in or reduced payout like UMD and Rutgers got. We’re not Maryland… no thank you.
LikeLike
You might be right, but I just think the numbers will work as they always have for expansion with the right schools.
I think if you’re getting 1.6 billion from your partners, you can get 2 billion with the right schools.
But this is all a discussion that will take place in a decade and who knows what the landscape will look like.
I can imagine scenarios where Duke is involved as a way of getting UNC away from the SEC.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
I have wondered the same thing with regards to Clemson, FSU, and Miami joining the SEC. They already have all of SC, so Clemson adds some more big games and more total inventory. The same with FSU, though also both of those schools bring a rivalry in-conference which could free up scheduling for a move to 9 games. Miami is similar.
So the question is how much value big games bring, and is there a point of diminishing returns? Someone also has to lose these games. How many more eyeballs can the SEC get by adding schools inside their footprint? Will they gain nationally?
Perhaps the best argument I have heard is that the SEC might add them to keep the B10 out of the south. FSU and Miami have a lot more value to the B10 than they do to the SEC. Adding access to FL for recruiting and some major markets would be valuable. I don’t see the B10 chasing Clemson, so it lessens the value to the SEC there.
Then there’s the GT question. Is getting into Atlanta worth it for the B10? It certainly isn’t for the SEC. Maybe if one FL school gets in, GT is added as a regional partner?
Then we get to the battleground of NC and VA. The 10.5M and 8.6M residents there carry subscriber value for BTN. The provide good recruiting for athletes, but more importantly future students. They provide regional partners for UMD, and reinforce hoops and lacrosse strength. They add multiple top 50 markets. And they’ll suck up some football losses to make others look good. They also stop the SEC from moving farther north.
The SEC gets many of those same benefits, though they don’t need the recruiting grounds and don’t play lacrosse. But stopping the B10 from getting them may be enough reason to add them.
So it’s possible the numbers work out, but I think this latest round of expansion has set the bar very high. ND + 1 is the one move anyone would make. All the rest are debatable at best.
The new CFP format may clarify some things. Clemson and FSU may be able to provide extra value that way.
LikeLike
The SwimSwam 4 seems like it may be the SEC’s most desired scenario (assuming Notre Dame doesn’t call). Get the most important schools in the large states of North Carolina & Virginia, with the basketball benefits those 2 schools bring). Then you add FSU and Clemson to 1)keep your football quality up 2) reassure football coaches that they’ll get regular trips into Florida 3) keep the Big Ten out.
As a bonus, the new schools fit in perfectly. The new SEC would have 6 schools in states that border UNC and 4 schools in states that border Virginia. There are already some historic rivalries there, and others would be established in time.
I still think the SEC might offer to take NCState along with UNC and Virginia, to help ensure they get picked over the Big Ten. I’m not sure NCState gets an SEC offer if UNC goes to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
I mostly agree with you, but I disagree about the math with ND. If the target is $100M per school, I think the B10 can count on ND bringing $150M by itself. That means the +1 “only” needs to be worth $50M, and I think several schools might fit that bill for the B10 (Stanford, UNC, FSU/Miami).
LikeLike
Fair point. I know others have said conference realignment teams always come in pairs, and history bears that out.
But we’re in new territory here. Divisionless conferences don’t need even numbers any more. In fact the B1G stayed at 11 for a loooong time, right?
The bonds between ND and Stanford are not historically strong (as others here also say), and there’s no indication ND would want someone else to come with them into the B1G – particularly given that would only reduce the pie for everyone.
Respecting everyone’s views. Am just not convinced that either B1G or ND need a “semi-whale” to be part of the mix if ND decided to join one day. Thoughts certainly appreciated!
LikeLike
Disagree with you, but love your disposition. -Much appreciated!
LikeLike
People assume a +1 for several main reasons:
1. You cannot play a 9-game schedule with an odd number of teams. One team would have to play 8 or 10 games to make it work.
2. Scheduling with odd numbers can be a pain. One school always needs the week off from conference play, and people generally prefer everyone gets OOC games over with early on (or at the very end). It’s doable, but even numbers can make it simpler.
3. 17 doesn’t break into convenient scheduling pods. Neither does 19. You could do 15 or 21. It’s not that you need scheduling pods, but they have some strange grip on people.
4. They’re so used to divisions.
5. Fans overestimate expansion. Many are convinced the B10 and SEC want to go to 28 teams, so of course you add a +1 when you add ND.
6. The financial math works with ND.
LikeLike
I can’t see UNC joining the Big Ten (or SEC) without at least one ACC partner, either UVa (their football rivalry dates back about a century, and their game closed the teams’ seasons into the early years of the ACC) or Duke (which doesn’t give you another state, unlike Virginia, but does have MBB allure).
LikeLike
Agreed, they are unlikely to come alone. The B10 would probably prefer that they don’t. ND, Stanford, UVA and UNC would check a lot of boxes for B10 needs and probably be at least revenue neutral.
LikeLike
Warren said there would be new family members in the media partnerships. Note the (s).
Also said they would use the 10:30 slot. I kind of expected they wouldn’t. USC and UCLA will have to play a lot of night games. Guess that is the price for full membership.
Brett McMurphy quoted him as saying they would be in FOUR time zones in 2024. Unless he is talking about western Nebraska, which is not where Lincoln is, he could be talking about a Mountain Time Zone addition.
LikeLike
CBS seems really obvious.
Their SEC deal ends just as a Big Ten deal would start.
Basically the most obvious partner right now.
NBC is trying to keep costs down it sounds like in its quest for shoulder programming while CBS probably would want #2 selections behind FOX and would probably get that at a decent price.
As far as streamers go, I think a game a week could end up on Amazon.
LikeLike
If NBC is cost conscious, they can take lower level B10 selections. Those are cheaper than #1 or #2. More likely they are debating value, and what would fit best as a coherent CFB package.
The streamers will probably try to force more of those terrible, hideous, never should be allowed except near holidays, weeknight games. It’s bad for students, it’s bad for high school players, it’s bad for college players, and it’s bad for the image of the conference. But it makes money, so why worry about anything else?
LikeLike
bullet,
It may mean multiple networks, but it could also mean subsets within a company – like counting the streaming side separately.
I didn’t see the 10:30 thing, but I’m not shocked. I highly doubt they use it every week. More likely USC and UCLA each play in it a couple of times per year so ESPN (or Fox) will pay for a good game then. If nothing else, USC vs UCLA could be then plus some OOC games.
There won’t be a MTZ addition. I’m sure he’s counting western NE because it’s technically true and makes the B10 look even more national. It’s like being the “fastest growing” company because your total sales went from $1 to $3.
LikeLike
I didn’t see the 10:30 thing
His full quote::
Q. It seems like this wave of expansion kind of hinged on a couple of things that made it so that you could, for lack of a better word, forsake your regional base here in the Midwest and go national, the ability to add more Big Ten Network subscribers in California in a 10:00 p.m. time slot for football that the Big Ten has never had before. Just how big were those two factors in this decision? If you want to share a number on what the existing schools are going to realize as a benefit annually, just a ballpark figure, feel free to do that. Are those things going to drive future expansion as well?
KEVIN WARREN: It could drive future expansion, but one of the things you said — again, back to what I said earlier — I always ask why and why not. I think sometimes later time zones on the West Coast, people looked at it as a negative, and I always looked at it as a positive. So for us in the Big Ten to be — we’re in four time zones, we will be in 2024: East, Central, Mountain, and West. So now we’ll be able to provide content all the way from the morning into the night and lead into some really incredible programming.
So I think the value of being across four time zones for multiple reasons is really important. We haven’t finalized the financial impact, and ironically this probably will shock you, the numbers and finances associated with it are typically the last thing that I kind of consider and analyze. It’s important for me from a business standpoint, but from a decision-making process standpoint, always look at all the other reasons why because, if all the other reasons make sense, the finances will take care of themselves.
So I’m looking forward to building a brand to be fortified and strong from Los Angeles to New Jersey and everywhere in between. So it will be an exciting time, busy time for these next two years. Thank you for all the work that you do.
http://asaptext.com/asap_media/media/1025/1297/transcripts/123150.html
LikeLike
I’d expect pretty much every USC and UCLA home game that isn’t a heavyweight matchup (and thus warrant a primetime slot) to take place at 10:30 Eastern (which is still primetime on the West Coast).
The B10 will likely schedule to make sure that the league has a home game in LA every week or nearly every week.
LikeLike
I don’t think they signed up for 5 late night games every year, and I think it’s a huge waste of USC’s brand. I could see their least exciting home games (2-3 B10, 1-2 OOC) being late night candidates (more for UCLA than USC), but it’s wasteful to put too many there.
The networks can pay the P12 or MWC to fill some of those slots for much cheaper.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA signed up for a ton more money.
They will play when the TV networks tell them to play.
LikeLike
Within reason, yes. The B10 often includes limits on how often a school can be (or must be) put into certain TV windows, and schools have been allowed to opt out of certain things (F night home games, November night home games). I’m not sure the B10 would add these 2 schools to immediately give them the worst thing about their P12 schedules again.
In addition, the B10 doesn’t get the full value of USC’s (and even UCLA’s) brand and their addition to the conference if they are playing when much of the B10 footprint isn’t watching. It would make much more sense to put schools like Cal and Stanford in that position than USC and UCLA. And if there were 4-6 pacific schools, it would be a lot fewer late games per school.
LikeLike
Warren didn’t mention ABC/ESPN in his remarks today. He did mention FOX and the BTN. Might be an indication that ESPN is out.
LikeLike
To be fair, the B10 and Fox have a unique relationship via BTN. The rest are just networks who may carry games. If you mention ESPN, then you need to mention NBC, CBS, and Amazon. I think he will mention ESPN when announcing the new deals – either because ESPN is still a partner, or to thank them for past coverage.
LikeLike
Long profile on Kevin Warren
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2022/big-ten-commissioner-warren-1234683396/
LikeLike
A pretty good profile of him, and the state of the conference under Delaney.
Delaney was here so long as college athletics transitioned from being less formal/more amateur and having small revenues to basically being a gigantic business.
So I’m not surprised that much of the Big Ten administration under Delaney was ad hoc with very little formal structure in terms of HR/contracts and such. Though as always his ability and timing with media deals was second to none. Brilliant choices all the way in terms of BTN/length of tv deals/moving to FOX/etc.
I think in that sense Warren was a good choice, professionalizing the Big Ten and transforming it into a corporation with its own in house teams for a lot of business/legal activities is the right approach in my mind.
I get that some ADs are skeptical of that like Glass who thought Big Ten should just be about pass through, but we’re at the point where building the Big Ten brand is the equivalent of promoting the 16 schools.
The SEC took that approach first and rode it to wild success. Making it a 2 conference game elevates the Big Ten in a similar fashion.
Of course, some of the personnel choices have clearly not worked, but some more recently seem promising.
It appears that he gets the business side of things which is what matters over the next 10-15 years especially, so I think he can be effective.
The fact that he was already thinking about USC/UCLA and Big Ten expansion when he interviewed is a huge plus in my mind.
LikeLike
Interesting! -Thanks for sharing
LikeLike
A lot of the rumors of Warren from the ADs appeared to be true. Maybe he has changed but the fact he didn’t stop to connect with Moos is crazy. Not a big fan of empire building in the league office. As long as expenses are constrained I am some what indifferent with the approach.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s the key, if it gets to the point where the corporate finances affect distributions, that’ll be a problem.
The one thing helping the Big Ten in that respect is that it has a peer competitor in the SEC.
Competition to stay in line with SEC payouts means that there isn’t spare cash for empire building, just what’s necessary to run the conference and the general business of college athletics.
If there was no peer competitor, then that’d be a problem and sometimes companies run astray and build huge bureaucracies that end up wasting lots of money.
But given the situation, I think that’s unlikely here.
LikeLike
I read recently that Warren’s contract is up in 2024 and so far the presidents have not renewed or extended. Maybe it’s early but it’s telling that they haven’t given him that vote of confidence. I am also not a believer that he is extremely involved with expansion. I am sure there is a small committee that know who the targets are and most of that work is done at the President level.
I am sure he active with the media deal but I know there is a committee of presidents and ADs that are also involved with the deal.
LikeLike
I think he’ll be extended, Ohio State in particular seems happy with Diana Sabau moving over there as deputy commissioner.
That probably helped fix that relationship, which is one of the key ones in the conference, if not the most important.
Reality is just that the Presidents will and should control the conference. Especially when it comes to expansion, relationships between presidents/ADs and presidents/ADs of target schools is a huge deal.
Maryland’s Wallace Loh’s relationships with Big Ten leadership in his former role as Iowa Provost.
The relationships between UCLA’s AD and Ohio State.
Those things are huge in realignment and can’t be understated, that’s how a lot of these discussions start and move along.
LikeLike
Very telling that Warren was willing to meet in person with media partners “early in the pandemic”, but not with potential senior executive hires. . . Wow.
LikeLike
That is how the priorities go, I mean, the Big Ten does grant all of its media rights to BTN which then turns around and sells them.
And of course BTN is 61% owned by FOX, so relationships with them are more important than anything else.
LikeLike
Media partners pay the bills. Senior execs do not. Especially in the case of a conference, which isn’t much involved in the product side of things (the individual schools and programs do that) but is really about selling and marketing.
LikeLike
Obviously Stanford is endowment rich (adding another 2B this year alone), but they have always operated on a tight athletic budget, regularly touting in fundraising letters that “Maintaining 39 sports within our current model, is unsustainable.” They even dropped, then reinstated, a handful of Olympic sports a couple years back in an attempt to control their athletic department’s ballooning budget. Stanford academic prestige is paramoumt, of course, but they are also assiduous in safeguarding and promoting their athletic prowess. The B1G offers them the perfect media partner to do just that, while finding their sports in the process. I believe Stanford to the B1G is only a matter of time. As for ND, I’m not as convinced as others here NBC’s ‘shouldering’ strategy is going to beat fruit. We shall see!
LikeLike
*funding **bear fruit
LikeLike
I’ll say it yet again: Is there any indication that Stanford whould want to join the Big Ten, even if invited? They may not want to bring 39 athletic teams across the country to compete. They don’t need the money and they don’t need the academic patina of the Big Ten. And aren’t they now the top dog in the Pac-12 now that USC and UCLA are gone?
LikeLike
Is there any evidence UVA, UNC, or any of the other usual “candidates” do?
Was there evidence for USC, UCLA, or UMD?
LikeLike
“Was there evidence for USC, UCLA, or UMD?”
Entirely different situations. Team travel logistics for UMD didn’t change much from the ACC to Big Ten Eastern Div. Stanford would be dragging 39 teams across the country every year, multiple times.
USC and UCLA came with their archrivals – each other. The Big Ten isn’t bringing in Cal-Berkeley.
LikeLike
You think that is Stanford’s big concern? Playing Cal? They can easily do that OOC (and ND, too).
13 of Stanford’s teams don’t play in the P12 at all. 2 of them would need to join the B10, but men’s indoor track & field is about meets, not conference play, and men’s gymnastics only has a few meets per year. Of the other 23 teams, many are meet-based sports as well. And they’d have at least 2 familiar faces and short trips in USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
They almost cut a lot of sports recently… they absolutely would enhance the financial situation of their athletics program if possible…
LikeLike
Goldman just double downgraded Paramount to a sell, trimmed Disney’s price target and reversed on Warner Discovery, calling it a buy. -You moved the markets!! 😄
LikeLike
The only thing I know about money is you can never have enough of it.
All this is the same; nobody ever stopped at any number.
Stanford’s always going to want the next billion.
ND is the only school that has ever foregone revenue to stay in a lesser financial solution if they had a choice.
But given the importance of independence to their donors/boosters and all that, it might be financially important too.
LikeLike
Z33k, ND may be the only school that has ever foregone revenue to stay in a lesser financial solution if they had a choice but that doesn’t mean that Stanford wouldn’t do the same. ND has doners to fill the gap and Stanford has pretty much the same situation with their endowments from doners. Plus Stanford is a top research school, ND is not.
LikeLike
Colin, academically Stanford fits in better with the Big Ten (or Ivy League but they’re not de-emphasizing sports) than anywhere else.
And the money would be double or so.
If ND heads to the Big Ten, their most likely partner is Stanford. Why would Stanford say no?
LikeLike
ND is the only school that has ever foregone revenue to stay in a lesser financial solution if they had a choice.
That’s not really true. UNC and UVa both could have joined the Big Ten or SEC after Maryland bolted, but chose to stay in the ACC despite lower payouts. FSU and Clemson could have joined the Big XII and made more there, but also chose to stick around. By most accounts, V-Tech, NC State, and Georgia Tech also had at least 1 other conference that was interested in them and would have given them a raise, but they too decided to remain loyal.
Admittedly, those schools have largely come to regret the decision (mostly because they badly underestimated exactly how much more the Big Ten and SEC would be making), but they did leave money on the table.
LikeLike
I believe ND is the only school that has left a substantial amount of money on the table. UNC/UVA et al did leave money on the table, but as @frug notes, they believed at the time that the difference would be a lot smaller than it turned out to be.
One could argue that even ND was not actually leaving money on the table. They believed that joining a conference would be a non-starter for many of their donors, for whom Independence is a quasi-religion. With prominent ND alumni softening now, that argument might eventually become irrelevant.
LikeLike
The only reason Stanford would turn down a Big Ten invite would be if they viewed it as prelude to some sort of professionalism for athletes, which they have made clear they would never be a part of.
LikeLike
This is the correct answer, and it is also why ND will insist on Stanford as a partner to join the B1G if that’s where ND decides to go. Has nothing to do with a “rivalry,” as some here seem to use as a strawman.
LikeLike
Peter,
Using it as a strawman implies they know it’s not true. I think a lot of fans (esp. younger ones) see Stanford and ND play every year, and the teams have for as long as they can remember, and they assume it’s a rivalry since it’s an annual OOC game.
I fail to see how conference affiliation has any impact on the professionalization of college sports. When a judge declares players are employees and must be paid, and their is no antitrust exemption that would allow for limiting wages, what does conference affiliation have to do with it? The law applies to independents just as much as the B10, P12, and SEC. Maybe I-AA could still get away with not paying players, but maybe not.
LikeLike
frug,
It seems like professionalism is coming regardless, and B10 expansion has no impact on that.
Will Stanford give up high level revenue sports? Will they drop to a lower NCAA division (or whatever equivalent governing body exists)? We’ll have to see what decisions they actually make.
LikeLike
I agree professionalism of sort is probably inevitable, and I think there is a good chance that Stanford could decide to drop down a level or set up a new conference/division with like minded schools like Cal, BC, Wake Forest, Duke, and (depending on how things shake out) possibly even NW, Vandy, and Georgia Tech who can not and/or will not compete using players as employees.
LikeLike
More to your point, Stanford may decide that moving to the Big Ten would force them to commit to professionalism whenever it comes (since the Big Ten is always going to compete at the highest level), and decide it isn’t worth it.
LikeLike
Too many benefits to remaining at the highest level. If Duke doesn’t care about getting it’s players paid (via NIL) to assemble the best basketball team possible, I don’t believe Stanford would willingly take on the Ivy model.
LikeLike
Frug:
The only schools that will decide that competing at the highest level isn’t worth it will be those who are forced from the highest level. Like the Ivies, once football stopped producing big revenues for them, then they decided that the Ivy model was OK. Very few schools will be like the U of C and voluntarily give up a top level money maker.
LikeLike
@Richard
You may be right, but a couple years ago when there was a court case to allow CFP to unionize, the president of Stanford said flat out and unequivocally that if players were declared employees or anything analogous to them, the school would stop sponsoring sports at the top level.
Maybe it was bluff or maybe the school could have a change of mind, but he seemed adamant.
LikeLike
Frug: Of course, it was in his interests to be adamant in that circumstance. Stanford wouldn’t want unionize players any more than any other school.
Delany also once said that if schools have to pay players, the B10 would drop down to the Ivy level. Do you believe him?
LikeLike
It’s also important to remember that at the time, the decision would only have impacted private schools. I can see Stanford having an issue with paying players when Cal doesn’t have to. But if all the top schools have to do it, it might be more palatable.
LikeLike
@Richard
You may well be right, be even people like Jon Wilner (who broke the LA schools to the Big Ten story) has said be believes there is a very good chance Stanford would leave the top level of college athletics if athletes were made employees. He also said that if Stanford did, Cal probably would also.
That said, the other schools I listed would mostly be dropping down a level because they couldn’t afford to keep up rather than any ideological aversion.
LikeLike
No university uses endowment income to fund athletics. None. Endowments are gifts from rich people, and the gifts are almost restricted to certain specified purposes, like scholarships in specified disciplines or endowed chairs.
The principal source of funds at any school are TV, paraphernalia, and tickets.
Why is this so hard?
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the entire point. Thirty billion dollars and they couldn’t afford to field a fencing team. I think maybe the difficulty’s on your end.
LikeLike
The value of FSU to the SEC is as a defensive measure. Yes, UF covers the entire state of FL, but so does FSU.
I think that the SEC would have to seriously consider FSU to block the B1G, or maybe Big 12. FSU culturally fits with the SEC better than with any other conference and would jump at an invitation, but if at some point invited elsewhere rather than staying with ACC leftovers, they would leave in a second. If rejected by the SEC, the B1G could get a major foothold in FL by offering FSU. FSU might even pay for itself immediately with the B1G. (And there are lots of B1G alums in FL).
FSU would immediately be the big dog in the Big 12.
I would expect the SEC to offer FSU just to block the B1G.
Clemson is a different issue. SC is just not that big a state, so Clemson is entirely dependent on being a football king. I am honestly not that sure that Clemson is even that widely supported in SC.
The U of SC (which is of course USC in state) is still the state flagship and located in Columbia in the middle of the state. Clemson is on the far western end of SC and is closer to Atlanta than it is to most of SC. Clemson only has about 21,000 undergrads and 5,000 grad students. Clemson also only has about 160,000 alumni.
FSU is not AAU, but does receive over $300 million in research dollars. (https://www.research.fsu.edu/publications-reports/annual-research-statistics/)
In addition, the State of FL is essentially limiting growth in the student bodies at both UF and FSU so that they both climb in academic standing. In ten years, FSU might be fairly attractive academically.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34297535/big-ten-expand-additions-usc-ucla-says-commissioner-kevin-warren-adds-additional-value-conference
Warren made sure to get the B10’s CFP stance out there.
Warren reiterated his full support for an expanded College Football Playoff and his confidence that a new model would be reached. The Big Ten was one of three leagues, along with the ACC and Pac-12, that voted against a 12-team proposal after months of discussions. Last fall, Warren had advocated for champions of power conferences to receive automatic berths in an expanded system.
Earlier this month, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey indicated he thinks that any future expanded models should not include automatic qualifiers.
“I still feel strongly that we need to open it up to have multiple media partners,” Warren said. “We need to take a holistic view. We need to make sure we protect some of the critical bowl relationships. So as we work through all these, whether it’s automatic qualifier, whatever the case may be, I’m confident as we get these new individuals in the room, get these issues on the table, that we’ll be able to reach some resolution.”
* Multiple media partners
* Protect the Rose Bowl (and maybe some others)
* Autobids
LikeLike
I’ve long felt the single biggest sticking point for the Big Ten was media rights all going to ESPN for 12 years.
That felt like a complete deal breaker to me for the Big Ten (which is likely substantially downsizing its presence on ESPN and possibly ending its ABC presence).
Everything else was window dressing. Big Ten could live with 6 AQs and 6 at-larges and a 12 year term.
Big Ten could give up the Rose Bowl guarantee or negotiate something around that.
The key to me was always that the Big Ten wants FOX (and others) involved and promoting Big Ten broadcasts alongside playoff broadcasts, which may not be possible if all of it is on ESPN.
Warren’s statement basically confirms what I’ve felt about it.
LikeLike
I think the Rose Bowl was also a big sticking point. The subcommittee conveniently didn’t include the B10 or P12, and they completely ignored that issue in their plan. Nobody who knows CFB would think the Rose Bowl wouldn’t be an issue for the B10 and P12. It was an issue in the current CFP, in the BCS, ….
I also think he/the B10 really believe in autobids. He may be willing to compromise on that, but I think he wanted them (mostly to protect the P12). The B10 believes in enshrining the difference between the P5 and the G5, and that’s why they wanted the autobids.
But yes, ESPN getting 100% of the CFP (and not having to compete for it) was a non-starter. I’m sure Fox made that clear to the B10. It was a non-starter to me as a fan knowing how homerific ESPN is for the SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s to protect the Pac. Warren wants the B10 CCG to mean something even when one of the teams is one that isn’t sure to make the playoffs without a guaranteed slot with a win, which definitely has been the case in the past.
LikeLike
That seems like less of an issue with an expanded CFP, and no divisions (which is likely in 2024).
LikeLike
Autobids
His comment on autobids is pretty loose: “So as we work through all these, whether it’s automatic qualifier, whatever the case may be,…” That is not exactly a hard line in the sand.
Autobids make almost no practical difference most of the time. There has never been a year in the history of the playoff that the Big Ten champ would not have been one of the top six conference champs. I suspect it would be a once-every-25 years occurrence, if that. Hardly the reason you would vote down an expanded playoff, assuming you agreed with the rest of it.
LikeLike
Marc,
Autobids put in writing that the P5 are above the G5. The B10 likes to see that codified. Especially, in my opinion, when the B10 and SEC are pulling away financially from the other P5 conferences and have taken the power pairs from 2 of them. This keeps the ACC, B12, P12 clearly above the G5 as well. That matters if you want to keep a tie with the P12 in the Rose Bowl, for example.
LikeLike
Sure, I can see why they’d prefer that. Is it the hill they die on? Both logic and his public comments suggest the Big Ten would not blow up the whole playoff over that issue.
Historically, the P5 have thrown bones to the G5 when they didn’t have to. Codifying “top six champs” provides the remote hope that the G5 would occasionally get a second playoff bid. The difference is more symbolic than real. When they do get a second bid, it would not come at the Big Ten’s expense. The odds that the Big Ten champ is not one of the best six are near zero once divisions are abolished.
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t know how much they value it. It was one of several reasons they blew up the last attempt at expansion, but not the most important of those reasons.
Before the recent realignment, it was throwing them a bone. With USC, UCLA, OU and UT moving, it’s a little different. Now the B12 and P12 have very little depth of usually successful football programs. They could more easily have the 7th best champ in a season now. The only upside for them is that the AAC lost their top programs, but every year at least one G5 goes on an 13-0 or 12-1 run. I could see the ACC, B12 and P12 being more concerned about being 7th when they have a down year or a CCG upset.
I think this is the B10 being a bit of an Alliance partner still. The B10 doesn’t need the autobid, but their allies might. And it protects the Rose Bowl for now.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34298046/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-says-ignore-persistent-talk-16-team-college-football-playoff
More talk of the expanded CFP going to 16.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN on Tuesday that the talk around a potential 16-team College Football Playoff is growing.
“Sixteen just seems to be out there,” Smith said. “You can’t ignore it.”
Smith clarified that this notion hasn’t been discussed formally, but added that it has come up consistently in the discourse about the CFP.
…
Former Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, who is the Big Ten’s special adviser for football, pointed out that a 16-team playoff offers greater access. While the notion of how the access is granted will be debated, the presence of more at-large bids would clearly favor the two 16-team leagues.
…
“I can live with 12, I can live with 16 — I just think we need to expand,” Alvarez told ESPN. “I think access is important. I can live with 16.”
…
The prevailing feeling around the conference is that Warren will back off his insistence for an automatic qualifier in the next iteration of the playoff talks.
…
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey acknowledged to ESPN at the SEC media days that he’d heard increased chatter about 16 teams becoming a discussion point. Sankey pointed out that a lot of compromise resulted in the proposed 12-team model that ultimately ended up being taken off the table in February.
“People rejected that, not me,” Sankey told ESPN in Atlanta last week. “And so now, as I look at the future, I was clear at that time trying to take a step back, because we weren’t unanimous for the format. That’s my responsibility to move people along. And I give our membership a lot of credit. I heard from others that they were unanimously against. I mean, I’ll stop my commentary there.”
The 12-team format didn’t have quite as much support as some have suggested. And with the latest realignment, the decisions that led to 6+6 as the compromise solution need to be revisited.
LikeLike
The 12-team format didn’t have quite as much support as some have suggested. And with the latest realignment, the decisions that led to 6+6 as the compromise solution need to be revisited.
When the negotiations blew up, the Pac-12 issued a press release indicating they supported any of the four most popular models — and none of them were 16 teams. That idea seems to have gained traction later on.
But this was totally predictable. In the 12-team model, four teams would get first-round byes. You could just as easily go to 16 with no byes, and it doesn’t make the season any longer. It just means nobody gets a bye. Eliminating byes is always a pain-free way to make more money: it has happened in most sports that had byes.
LikeLike
I haven’t linked a McMurphy post in a while:
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren told Action Network there are “a handful of schools” besides Notre Dame that would add value as future Big Ten members.
The schools being considered by the Big Ten, sources told Action Network, are Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Miami and Florida State. Warren would not comment on specific schools as potential members.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big-ten-commissioner-kevin-warren-possible-expansion-college-football-playoff-more?utm_source=FrankTheTank&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=FrankTheTank111
LikeLike
Now THAT’S my kind of list!
LikeLike
He could be trolling the SEC into action, but if not, my B1G LEAGUE is coming along nicely. Perhaps UNC wasn’t included as a subtle jab at Delany, or merely subterfuge? Hmmmm.
LikeLike
There’s a lot in that short piece.
I note that the only ACC schools mentioned were from FL. I find that hard to believe. And another “source” has the 4 corners schools as options while they weren’t mentioned at all by the first source.
Warren said he was proud that USC and UCLA are AAU (Association of American University) members but also said being an AAU member is not a requirement for a potential future member.
…
“It could be two months to two years,” another source said. “There could be an odd number, and there are not any specific number of teams.”
…
“We’re in a five-year period of transformation,” Warren said. “Just because these are some of the moves on the front end of the transformation, we won’t really know that until we get toward a conclusion. I think over the next couple of years, it will settle down — the movement between conferences. How many are there? How many are not there? The structure will become clear.”
If the Big Ten adds more Pac-12 teams, the Big 12 could pursue Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah from the Pac-12, sources said. Warren said he has developed a close relationship with new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark.
…
As for Warren’s “five-year transformation period,” he’s unsure how many power conferences will remain.
“That is a question that remains to be seen,” Warren said. “Think of how much more we know today than we did a year ago. Then think a year from now. It will become crystal clear as far as what is the right fit. The market will dictate where things should settle.”
One Big Ten coach has an idea of how those things will settle.
“We know how this ends,” the coach said. “Twenty or more teams in the Big Ten, 20 or more teams in the SEC. One televised on Fox. One on ESPN. Just like the NFL. And then you have your Big Ten-SEC playoff for college’s Super Bowl.
“Then the six-win teams will play in a Tampa bowl, the seven-win teams will play in Orlando. That’s where we’re headed.”
Regarding the future of the College Football Playoff, Warren said he is 100% supportive of an expanded playoff but favors automatic bids to Power Five conference champions.
“There should be some difference for conferences who win their conference championships,” Warren said. “There has to be a reward for winning the conference. Our student-athletes focus so much on the season, I think that’s important. They have to get some credit for that. It makes the end of the regular season really important.”
Warren added with an expanded playoff, whether it’s eight, 12 or 16 teams, that “I don’t ever want to get to the point where a committee chose (all the teams) that go to the College Football Playoff.”
LikeLike
I feel like these types of sources are more often from coaches and such and they just spit out teams they think would be interesting.
The ADs did give a list of 10 schools to Warren (I forgot who said that, but it was reported by ESPN).
USC, UCLA were on that list of 10, so there’s 8 others to work out….
But it’s always hard to put weight on these things since most likely these sources aren’t coming from the presidents and they matter more than anybody else.
LikeLike
…these sources aren’t coming from the presidents and they matter more than anybody else.
Actually, the presidents have an extraordinary tendency to follow their commissioners’ recommendations. That is why the Pac-12 and the ACC are in such ruinous media deals. Their presidents are not stupid. They were led down a garden path by incompetent commissioners.
It’s not a rubber stamp, but the commissioner is a professional sports executive who works on nothing but sports, and presidents are—not that. I am not saying Kevin Warren can do anything, but I doubt that the Big Ten presidents are any smarter about sports than the Pac-12 and ACC presidents were. You’ve got to hope that the professional you hired is good at his job.
LikeLike
I agree to an extent Marc, but I think on realignment in particular, the presidents strongly drive the bus.
They have lots of conversations with other presidents about their conferences.
Most other conference matters they probably rubber stamp, but I think realignment would be one where they’re much more active.
LikeLike
Amen to rewarding conference champs and preventing the SEC from laying down at season-end!
And as a Stanford alum, I can confidently say that Stanford is all about $$$$$$$ and takes A LOT of pride in its sports performance. Between that and the alums that care about the major sports wanting to be invited to the BiG, someone important would likely lose their job if the school said no.
LikeLike
…Zactly! I’m wearing my ‘Straight Outta EV’ t-shirt as we speak 😂
LikeLike
Interesting list, but I find it hard to believe UNC and UVA won’t find it onto a list (along with possibly Duke and Ga Tech).
There were so many rumors flying about UVa when Maryland joined that their President had to come out and commit to the ACC and say they wouldn’t be leaving the ACC.
I find it hard to believe UNC and UVa won’t be looked at for any expansion scenario.
The rest are fine.
Reality is presidents drive the bus on this.
As far as AAU goes, I think Florida State and Miami make sense as the 2 non-AAU exceptions to the rule. Va Tech is interesting, but hard to see Big Ten double dipping in Virginia.
LikeLike
I think the “sources” in this case don’t really have inside info. That’s why certain key schools weren’t listed.
And as for the AAU mention, that’s all about the elephant in the room (ND) in my opinion.
VT wouldn’t be double dipping if UVA goes to the SEC. I’m still not convinced the B10 will jump to FL for FSU or Miami (or both?). They don’t have the academics like USC and UCLA, and they’ll always be secondary to UF.
LikeLike
Maybe it puts pressure on UF to leave the SEC for the Big Ten
LikeLike
Is that the one where the SEC and B10 agree to trade OSU for UF? Oh, and TAMU too?
Nobody is leaving the B10 for the SEC (or anywhere else).
Nobody is leaving the SEC for the B10 (or anywhere else).
LikeLike
I’m probably as much on the Big Ten academic focus train on anyone, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all that Miami and FSU would be in the mix as expansion targets. I’ve been saying that Miami is an underrated Big Ten expansion candidate for years.
The State of Florida is simply inordinately important for college football and demographically in general. It produces the most FBS recruits outside of Texas and actually produces them at a higher per capita rate by comparison. Add in the super fast population growth in multiple major markets and how it’s destination #1 for retirees from the Big Ten footprint and I can see why the league would be willing to look past academics in this particular case. The State of Florida is only going to become even more important in the future.
Note that Miami is pretty high on the AAU metrics where they probably would be in that organization if it was starting from scratch today.
While the Big Ten is more focused on graduate research rankings, it should be noted that FSU has zoomed up to #55 on the US News rankings for undergrad (actually tied with Miami now). They’d be ranked right in the middle of the pack of the Big Ten on that front: 7th in the current 14-team league and 9th in the future 16-team league.
LikeLike
Frank,
They should be considered, but to me that AAU comment was directed elsewhere. It was never a true rule in the first place (ND would always have been taken).
Yes, FL is full of old former midwesterners. But apparently LA/SoCal is the #1 location for B10 alumni outside of the midwest (was NYC considered as “midwest” for that statement?). I’d like to see the data behind that.
My bigger concern is the cultural and geographic gap from the B10 to FL. FSU is southern. Period. It would be a terrible fit culturally, and their fans would be angry from day 1. Miami is more eastern and Cuban, two things that don’t match all that well with the midwest either. I suppose RU might have more in common with them.
Being isolated behind enemy lines deep in SEC territory is different from just being far away like USC and UCLA. This is especially an issue because UF dominates FL. FSU and/or Miami would be definite little brothers, and that would limit the effectiveness of having FL access. When all the FL media spend hours trashing the B10 and praising the SEC, it reduces the recruiting gains.
Again, I’m not saying they should be a hard no. But fit needs to be considered carefully in this case. AT some point chasing money blindly isn’t worth it.
LikeLike
Brian, have you ever lived in FL? According to people who have, FSU is to UF as A&M is to Texas (or PU to IU, to use a B10 example). Not as much like GTech to UGa. So maybe slightly behind in fans, sure, but more like a co-flagship of a huge state. Adding FSU and Miami would make FL as much of a B10 state as adding only A&M made TX an SEC state.
LikeLike
https://footballscoop.com/news/map-breaks-popular-college-football-teams-zip-code
I never said it was like UGA to GT. It’s similar to UT to TAMU, UM to MSU, etc. But it also varies geographically within the state. FSU’s strength is in the panhandle and northern FL. UF’s relative strength grows as you head south in FL with a plurality of support throughout the peninsula until you near Miami. And being SEC country, non-UF fans will still generally root for the SEC over the B10.
There would still be a decent amount of support if the B10 added FSU and Miami, I’m not saying there wouldn’t be. But does the B10 want to play second fiddle in a state? And does a non-AAU, football-first, truly southern school deep in SEC territory (FSU) want to join the B10 if the SEC is an option?
I’m not saying the answers are no, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s as simple and obvious as some make it sound. FL is great for recruiting and population and midwestern retirees, but the B10 just added SoCal. It’s also great for recruiting and population and midwestern retirees, especially with AZ next door. Having USC and UCLA changes the equation for the B10, and I don’t think everyone (including me) has fully thought through the new reality.
In the coast to coast B10, now it’s about avoiding dilution of the product, adding value through brands and markets, and perhaps becoming more national. Miami could be part of that. So could UVA/UNC. And the northwest 4 from the P12. And maybe a school or two from the southwest. I’m not sure if FSU is as valuable to the B10 now as before adding the CA schools. Realistically, most of the SEC footprint (including TX) is gone as there aren’t any brands left worth adding.
But at some point the B10 has to draw the line. They can’t just grow indiscriminately. There must be a point of diminishing returns on the intangible side as well as the financial side. I think it’s hard to expand to the W, NW, SE, and mid-Atlantic. They have to make some strategic choices.
LikeLike
Could FSU and Miami be on the B1G list as a head fake to get the SEC thinking of defense rather than new territory (UNC, VA)?
Listing the 4 PAC schools and the 2-5 year timeframe is likely to change the PAC GOR length and exit penalties. If 4 schools (vs 2) think they will get the golden ticket the PAC may not be able to create stiff exit penalties or agree to any long (>5 or 6 years) GOR or TV contract.
LikeLike
Brian, at times I think you’re 80 years old.
How happy did you think the SEC was to “play 2nd fiddle” in TX when they added only A&M?
The B10 would be just as happy if they add FSU and Miami.
LikeLike
So happy they added UT to stop playing second fiddle in TX. The difference is, everyone knows UF is never leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Everybody would be happy to add Texas, but did not being able to get Texas a few years ago stop the SEC from adding A&M?
And never say never. Yes, football rules the roost now, but if in the future, e-gaming drives the bus, UF (and UGa and Texas) may decide that they prefer the B10 as academic peers.
Anyway, the way you think through matters just doesn’t make sense. As Frank noted, the White Sox, as the 5th most popular pro team in Chicago, but is more popular than the #1 most popular team in a lot of cities. Likewise, #2 in FL and TX are a lot more valuable than the #1 in many states.
LikeLike
Stop being ridiculous. It doesn’t matter what sport is king, UF isn’t leaving the SEC for the B10. If e-sports is the big thing in the future, you know damn well the SEC schools would add it.
Stop misrepresenting what I say. I said nothing about the relative value of FSU to #1 schools in other states. They’re more valuable than half the B10. That wasn’t the discussion.
I said the B10 might not want to play second fiddle in FL. That has nothing to do with value per se, but appearance and ego. And I didn’t say they shouldn’t or wouldn’t, just “might not want to.” Just like the SEC might not want to take NCSU if UNC joins the B10.
I also pointed out the cultural and geographical gaps, which I note you skipped right over. That’s one reason why TAMU to the SEC was a different story. There was neither a cultural gap for a geographical one. It would be like if the B10 already stretched down to VA, NC, and GA, and we were talking about adding FSU. Apples and oranges.
Warren made a point of stressing “fit” when talking expansion, and FSU is a poor fit in several ways. That shouldn’t eliminate them, because they also have plusses, but it should definitely require thought.
LikeLike
As interesting as FSU would be, I do agree with Brian on a lot of the points of culture and fit.
USC, UCLA are a part of the Rose Bowl relationship; they’ve played huge historical games against Big Ten schools. The two conferences share a lot of history.
UVA, UNC at least feel like a natural southern extension off of Maryland; can toss Duke in as well.
Ga Tech probably fits a lot better in the Big Ten than FSU as a school, but obviously they don’t have the pull that FSU has in terms of strength in market/brand.
FSU could make sense but not if we’re adding 4 more out West; the conference will be stretched like a pretzel at some point if it tries to add everyone.
I still think 22 is my absolute limit (Washington, Stanford out West, ND in the Midwest, and UNC, UVa, Duke).
I feel like that gives you enough on both coasts (4 out West + the Mid-Atlantic core of UNC/UVA/Duke/MD) that it doesn’t feel like you’ve gone crazy.
FSU/Miami feel like a stretch for me for the reasons Brian brings up.
If the Big Ten had never gone to USC/UCLA, then maybe an expansion towards FSU/Miami makes sense. As it is now, it feels like you have to take 6-7 ACC schools to make that work and that looks impossible.
LikeLike
Little8,
It could be many things. It could be misdirection. It could be a partial list because that’s all the source had, or all they wanted to give. It could be because analysis of other schools is complete, while fresh analysis is being done with the 7 schools due to realignment and new TV deals under discussion. Maybe they only recently started to think of FSU and Miami as an option (COP/C used to not want to raid the P12, but maybe distance is not such a concern top them anymore).
I think the new additions change the analysis on all other candidates going forward:
1. How much financial value must they bring?
The bar has been raised. Do all new additions need to top that number, or can intangibles make up the difference? Would a buy-in plan be considered to make up the difference? What if they come with a more valuable partner, even if its a few years out of sync?
2. What does the B10 want/need from future additions?
We know they need strong academics, and a decent sports brand. They also need to “fit” the B10. With SoCal added, has the importance of demographics diminished? Is it more about markets and brands now? Do the SoCal schools want/need regional partners? Do schools need to be the top dog in their state?
3. What is the B10’s 50-year strategic plan?
It used to be adding the mid-Atlantic. Is that still true? Is it the W, the E, or both? How important are the Pacific northwest, the southwest, the mid-Atlantic, and the southeast? Is their a size limit beyond which being one conference doesn’t make sense given the current structure of college sports? What if the structure changes in specific ways?
I think the 5-year timeframe was just to encompass all the major changes everyone knows are coming – new TV deals for 3 of the P5 and ND, possible associated realignment, expanded CFP, new governance structure.
LikeLike
I find it amusing that there are people who think, after the B10 expanded all the way to SoCal and Warren touted the power of being a conference that was in 4 time zones and could show games in 4 time slots on Saturday, that the B10 has a problem with being a national conference.
The West Coast is OK but suddenly FL is too far?
About culture, sure, a decade ago, FSU may have been seen as too southern but still thinking the B10 thinks that today? I find that quaint.
It’s like thinking that the NFL, before they expanded south, would never expand in to the former Confederacy.
BTW, it seems like you folks haven’t noticed that both culture and politics have nationalized in this country.
LikeLike
BTW, UNC is as or more southern than FSU.
We know UNC alums would prefer the SEC to the B10.
LikeLike
I disagree.
Large parts of culture and politics are still regional, and you can be national while still paying attention to “fit.”
I don’t think the B10 is worried about the physical distance to FL. I do think they might be concerned about how isolated FSU would be in enemy territory. That’s not a concern with USC and UCLA.
I also think they might be concerned about how culturally different FSU is from the rest of the B10. UNC would at least have UMD (and maybe UVA, or Duke) as a cultural bridge. FSU is southern in a very different way from UNC. It’s like TAMU vs UT.
LikeLike
Looking at recent Census data, here are the population stats in potential realignment states:
FL 21.7m +15.3% from 2010
NC 10.7m +10.7%
GA 10.3m +10.3%
VA 8.6m +7.1%
WA 7.7m +14.1%
AZ 7.2m +15.8%
CO 5.8m +15.1%
SC 5.2m +12.6%
OR 4.2m +10.5%
UT 3.2M +17.1%
Based on current trends, by the 2040 Census WA & AZ will jump VA in population. I don’t know this for a fact, but I believe it to be true that AZ and the area north of Orlando are the two main areas where Midwestern snowbirds retire.
I know AZ State is not AAU, but it really makes all the sense in the world for the B1G to be in the state of AZ. Distances are great out west, but traveling within a time zone is much better than across time zones.
I could see WA, Cal, Stanford & AZ State in the B1G for the next round. I can’t see the Irish joining a conference for football until there are no alternatives left. The may be the B1G’s #21, but they won’t be #17.
The SEC probably has no interest in the West. Locking down FL (FSU & Miami), expanding in the Carolinas (Clemson, UNC – possibly NC State & Duke), and into VA make much more sense for them than the B1G. Plus, if 24 is the ultimate number, the SEC could take all of them.
If both the B1G and the SEC are at 24, then they can charge a lot more for their TV packages, as they would have decimated any other alternatives. A 24 team B1G in four time zones with all of CA, AZ & WA (possibly UT & CO), and the Irish, along with a 24 team SEC with the best of the ACC would include every King & Baron on Mandel’s list. In fact the only Knights looking for a home would be Pitt, GA Tech, Louisville, Baylor, K-State, TCU, OK State, TX Tech & West VA.
Under this scenario, in the 2030s these 16 adds more than pay for themselves because there is no alternative as it exists today. The execs of the B1G & SEC are smart. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the B1G’s expiration date coincide with the SEC’s this next time.
LikeLike
Alan,
You left CA off your list.
CA 39.5m +6.1% from 2010
“Based on current trends, by the 2040 Census WA & AZ will jump VA in population.”
Trends change. It may happen, it may not.
“I don’t know this for a fact, but I believe it to be true that AZ and the area north of Orlando are the two main areas where Midwestern snowbirds retire.”
Warren claimed SoCal was the #1 place outside the midwest for B10 alumni, but certainly FL and AZ have tons of snowbirds. Apparently midwesterners tend to the Gulf coast of FL while New Englanders move to the east coast of FL. I know the southwest is big for OSU alumni. OSU basically was playing home games in the Fiesta Bowl several times.
“I know AZ State is not AAU, but it really makes all the sense in the world for the B1G to be in the state of AZ.”
Other than physical distance and the dilution of the product and the number of schools in the conference, sure. Phoenix is a big market, too. But ASU does less research than MSU and is much larger, so their per capita research isn’t high. ASU isn’t a terrible school, but their reputation isn’t great either. The lack of a brand hurts them, too.
“I could see WA, Cal, Stanford & AZ State in the B1G for the next round.”
You think being in AZ trumps UO’s brand?
“I can’t see the Irish joining a conference for football until there are no alternatives left. The may be the B1G’s #21, but they won’t be #17.”
Pretty much. Unless NBC shockingly says no to ND’s demand.
“The SEC probably has no interest in the West.”
Agreed.
“Locking down FL (FSU & Miami), expanding in the Carolinas (Clemson, UNC – possibly NC State & Duke), and into VA make much more sense for them than the B1G.”
Why does it make more sense for them than the B10? The SEC is already in FL. Doesn’t that mean the B10 has more to gain there? Likewise, doesn’t the B10 need NC and VA more than the SEC does? I’m not talking about the odds of adding them, just who has more to gain from it.
“Plus, if 24 is the ultimate number, the SEC could take all of them.”
I don’t believe there are ultimate numbers. The P2 will expand until there are no more additions that add sufficient value. That could be 16, or 32, or anywhere in between.
“If both the B1G and the SEC are at 24, then they can charge a lot more for their TV packages, as they would have decimated any other alternatives.”
They’re doing that at 16. How much more can they charge by adding schools from conferences getting half the revenue? CFB has a ceiling because it isn’t the NFL and never will be.
“The execs of the B1G & SEC are smart. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the B1G’s expiration date coincide with the SEC’s this next time.”
I think everyone will be aiming for around 2033 or 2034.
LikeLike
Alan, AZ is growing like gangbusters but the problem there is that the 2 AZ schools draw pitiful viewership for football despite both being gigantic. Possibly because AZ draws so many immigrants from elsewhere, so a lot of people in that state don’t have loyalties to either of the 2 AZ giants.
LikeLike
Richard – back in 03, I attended an Arizona LSU game in Tucson. My Tigers obliterated the poor Wildcats on their way to the BCS championship. After LSU went up by 50, a very nice older gentleman sitting next to us wearing Wildcat gear from head to toe confessed that he was really a Badger fan. We both laughed.
I get it. Everybody in Arizona is from somewhere else. But it is one of the five fastest growing states and I don’t see them slowing down. And the state is full of midwestern transplants. I think my Badger/Wildcat buddy would be much more interested in a B1G schedule than watching his adopted team play Oregon State.
LikeLike
Definitely agreed that Arizona might be THE center for Midwestern transplants. The state was so freaked out when the Cubs were considering moving their spring training site to Naples, Florida (another Midwestern transplant haven) that they proposed a tax on all Cactus League tickets just to keep that specific team there (something that not even teams like the Dodgers could ever get). That tax didn’t end up going through, but it shows how specifically the state is dependent on Midwestern transplants and tourists. Note that Phoenix has enough former Chicagoans that it has opened multiple Portillo’s and Lou Malnati’s locations (the latter being the only locations outside of the Midwest) and Culver’s is as ubiquitous as McDonald’s.
In Florida, the places where Midwesterners (or at least Chicagoans) gravitate to the most by far are the Gulf Coast from Tampa southward to Fort Myers/Naples/Marco Island. Note that Portillo’s has locations in Tampa and Orlando, too. My favorite local Chicago pizza place is Aurelio’s – which specializes in the underrated (at least nationally) Chicago tavern-style thin crust is as opposed to deep dish – and they have multiple locations in the Fort Myers/Naples area because there are so many Chicago snowbirds there. (I haven’t had lunch yet, so food is clearly on my mind.) Northern Florida seems to have more Southern transplants while South Florida is the province of NYC area and other East Coast transplants.
LikeLike
But Alan, I agree that it really does make sense for both the SEC and B10 to expand to 20+ and monopolize CFB (and set up a B10-SEC Challenge in both football and basketball).
Contrary to others, I don’t think the big battle between the SEC and B10 will be for UNC but for FSU.
The SEC would want to add 4: Ideally, FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVa. If they lose out on some of them, maybe NCSU/VTech/Duke.
I think it makes sense for the B10 to add ND, Miami, Stanford, Cal, UW, regardless. The B10 would try to add FSU, UNC, and UVa too (going against the SEC). Maybe Duke. Maybe UO. Maybe GTech. All depending on who wins FSU and UNC (and UVa).
Brian, you may disagree all you want (I know you hate reality), but the data shows that politics has nationalized.
LikeLike
Richard – I can see that. As I wrote earlier, FSU always wanted to be in the SEC until they had were offered a spot in the early 90s. Again, they may choose a different path. But, I see blue chippers in FL wanting to play in the SEC, just like the blue chippers in TX. Maybe that’s just the trendy choice for this generation. Maybe administrators won’t care, but Texas sure did. There’s certainly enough to go around in FL, but I’m not sure that the B1G is willing to go into SEC territory with FSU that probably half the fanbase as UF and take a chance getting beat – in recruiting, in market share, and on the field.
LikeLike
Alan: Well, the B10 would definitely prefer Miami+FSU to Miami+GTech.
As for FSU’s preferences, they very well may prefer the SEC. Though one difference from Texas is that FSU has always had to recruit while completely surrounded by powerhouse SEC schools on all sides (that isn’t water), and for decades, they did extremely well (it does help to sit in the middle of one of the most fertile regions for football talent in the country). Meanwhile, Texas never had to recruit against another major TX school that’s in the SEC.
LikeLike
A possible endgame (not my favored one):
SEC manages to grab FSU+Clemson+UNC+Duke.
B10 takes ND+Miami+UVa+UW+Cal+Stanford.
B12 will have the best of the rest (UO, VTech, NCSU, Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, some/all of the 4 corners schools); maybe some others.
Iowa, UVa, UW, UGa excused from the participating in the B10-SEC Challenge to play in-state rivals.
SEC would have the edge in super-kings, the B10 in population.
Super-kings: OSU vs Bama, LSU, Texas, UGa, UF
Kings: UMich, PSU, USC, ND, Miami vs OU, FSU, Tennessee
High Princes: MSU, UCLA vs Clemson, Auburn, A&M
Princes: Wisconsin, UNL, Iowa, UW, Cal, Stanford vs SC, Arkansas, UNC
LikeLike
At least the B10 could console itself with usually winning the B10-SEC basketball challenge, however (even with the SEC adding UNC and Duke).
In this scenario, the B12 would also be a powerhouse basketball conference second to none.
And even without Duke, the B10 would, numerically, outnumber even the Ivy Leaguers at the top b-schools, law schools, Wall Street, and absolutely dominate in Silicon Valley.
LikeLike
The obvious takeaway from the McMurphy list, if it’s legit, is that UNC and Virginia are already keyed in on going to the SEC, and the Big Ten is looking elsewhere. If UNC and Virginia go to the SEC, then the next logical moves fro the Big Ten would be FSU and Miami. So this list would make sense.
I’m somewhat surprised to see Washington, Oregon, and Cal on there. I had thought the Big Ten wasn’t going to add those schools. I guess we’ll see.
LikeLike
Warren’s, well we’ll figure it out as we go along attitude is pretty disruptive for the rest of college football. It was like their open audition in 2009-10 that lead to the potential Pac 16 deal.
What is he going to know in a year that he doesn’t know now?
LikeLike
bullet,
The rest of CFB isn’t Warren’s concern. His concern is the best interest of the B10. Every other commissioner has said something similar lately, if not worse. He didn’t say the B10 is “open for business.”
In a year he’ll know:
1. The B10’s TV deal
2. ND’s TV deal/ND’s reaction to the B10’s TV deal
3. If the B10 needs to find a school to pair with ND
4. The P12’s TV deal
5. if the B12 and P12 have any more realignment
6. Maybe the B12’s TV deal
7. The format of an expanded CFP and its revenue distribution formula
The B10’s next expansion, if it ever happens, is most likely to include ND or an ACC school. Until ND definitively says no this time, he can’t close the door on expansion for now. And he’s correct, with all the rumors about the ACC, B12 and P12 merging or raiding each other we really don’t know how things will look until the B12 signs their deal. Only then will things go quiet until 2033 or so.
LikeLike
And other than 1 & 2, none of it is particularly relevant to Big 10 expansion.
LikeLike
But it is all relevant to what Warren might know a year from now and upon which he cannot comment now. As Brian said, Warren’s job is not to wildly speculate in order to make the PAC12, or whomever, comfortable.
The FSU – Miami commentary is interesting. For the tenth time that I have posted the same thing, UF and FSU are moving up academically by the plan of the powers that be in FL. Ignoring AAU, and even ignoring recent football mediocrity, which may continue a few more years, the B1G signing FSU would be enormous. While UF is number 1 in FL, FSU is certainly at least 1b (if there is no 1a). That is why I expect the SEC to make a preventive offer.
We live a bit south of Jacksonville, but in the Orlando TV market. We are about 75 miles east of Gainesville, so technically, we are in UF territory. With that in mind there are a comparably large number of UF and FSU license plates, window stickers, or t-shirts being worn. A trip to a place like Walmart or a sporting goods store around here has both UF and FSU stuff. (And Jacksonville Jaguars.)
U Miami is a bit different. Around here, nearly 300 miles north of Miami, one very very rarely sees license plates, or car stickers, or anything else for the U. I am not sure about getting all of FL by picking up just the Canes, but a combination of Canes and B1G alums might be enough for the state.
The Miami Dade metro area is over 6 million people and larger than Atlanta. Honestly, there are so many from South America or Cuba, it is not necessarily an American football centric population, though there are lots of U Miami fans.
So the Miami TV market is huge, 6th in the country or so.
A combo of FSU and Miami would certainly make FL a B1G state as much as more than an SEC state.
LikeLike
bullet,
I disagree.
#3 directly impacts B10 expansion
#4 may limit options for expansion, especially if the P12 signs a GOR with their new deal (they’ll probably have to for the tier 3 stuff).
#5 also can limit who is available. Schools that just moved may be less inclined to move again, especially since it means you overlooked them previously.
#6 again may limit available options, especially with a GOR.
#7 is all about money, and that’s what expansion is about. When schools know how the money will be split, only then can they truly project their future conference payouts. Will the P5 get autobids? Will the P5 get equal shares? Will performance matter? Then schools can look at their financial gap and see if they want/need to move or not.
LikeLike
If this was previously discussed, SORRY.
Regarding Notre Dame. Do you think it’s possible the BIG is negotiating on two tracks? One with ND and one without ND. Thinking they could present the offer to ND to try and get them to join?
It would seem ND negotiating power is at its peak right now. When the current CFP contract expires and a new one that might shut ND out, they wouldn’t the bargaining power they do now. When the ACC GOR expires and they get raided, again ND wouldn’t have a whole lot of bargaining power.
Most folks feel ND will eventually join the BIG as do I. IMO I think ultimately Ice Hockey could be the key. I know it not big REVENUE but, neither the ACC nor SEC have Ice Hockey. If ND were to join either, there is no way they could remain part of the BIG. Ice Hockey is very important to ND. They could join another DI Conference, but it wouldn’t have the cachet or exposure the BIG has.
Does the BIG add two WC partners for USC & UCLA or just stand pat for now?
LikeLike
It would seem ND negotiating power is at its peak right now. When the current CFP contract expires and a new one that might shut ND out, they wouldn’t the bargaining power they do now.
There is zero chance that ND will be shut out of the playoff. Why? Everyone knows that it would push ND into a conference, which would almost certainly be the Big Ten. No one except the Big Ten wants that to happen. Thus, in a vote on playoff access rules, the Big Ten is the only imaginable “yes” for that idea. And even the Big Ten would probably not vote yes, since they know it’s a stone-cold loser. Why offend the school you hope to attract, when the proposal is going to fail anyway?
Most folks feel ND will eventually join the BIG as do I. IMO I think ultimately Ice Hockey could be the key.
Non-revenue sports are never the principal reason for conference switches. 75–80% of the revenue comes from football, and almost all of the rest comes from basketball. It’s quite common for schools to have sports their home conference does not sponsor. If the Big Ten refused to accommodate Irish Hockey (unlikely), there are other conferences that would take them in a heartbeat.
I do agree that if ND ever joins a conference, it will be the Big Ten. Just not because of hockey.
LikeLike
Doug,
I don’t think it’s 2 tracks, just the as is track plus X for ND. And I’m sure they are letting ND know what that number would be, but ND is busy talking with NBC about their own deal at the moment.
There is no chance the next CFP doesn’t make it even easier for ND to get in, so I don’t see that as an issue. ND will always have bargaining power, but there isn’t much they really want beyond staying independent in football. They can ask for a specific +1. Maybe they ask to stay on NBC.
If ND ever joins any conference, it’ll probably be the B10. But that’s a big if at the moment.
The B10 should stand pat to assimilate the new additions, but they might expand further. They seem too far into TV negotiations to want to change the membership, though.
LikeLike
Do we know the time frame of the B1G TV contract negotiations? Are we looking at a 2024-2027 contract? Five years? Longer?
LikeLike
They never tell us in advance about that. I’d guess 6 years is about the minimum length the networks would consider, and 12 years is about the max the B10 would consider (end of ACC GOR).
LikeLike
Before yesterday, nobody had hinted at the next ultimate baller move by the B10 (after taking the LA schools), which is adding FSU and Miami together (eventually). To be fair, a big reason is because everybody expects FSU to go to the SEC if invited, but the B10 could make a compelling argument to the Noles: Join a national conference instead of a regional conference and one that has more academic prestige yet pays out the same. And it’s not as if FSU hasn’t rejected the SEC before to join a conference with some cold-weather schools. On the other side, while FSU may have been rejected by the B10 before due to academics, FSU has improved a lot academically and research-wise in the past couple decades. For recruiting (both football and OOS students), getting a large footprint in FL also makes a ton of sense.
What does that say about UNC and UVa? Hard to say. It could mean the SEC has the inside track for those schools, but taking FSU+Miami also makes the B10 more compelling for UNC and UVa than the B10 as it currently is.
LikeLike
The days of media members getting scoops in shady bars are over. They are now fed information for a purpose. So what’s the purpose of putting Miami and Florida State our there for the first time which is what everyone will talk about? What’s the reason for not mentioning UVA and UNC?
IMO the Miami and Florida State reference is either a shot at the SEC that they may want to watch their own backyard instead of going after UNC and UVA or a shot at Notre Dame that their independence is dead in a decade no matter what so why wait or it could possibly be both. The lack of UNC and UVA reference could be like some of you said because they are SEC bound or that the Big Ten have been negotiating with those schools for awhile and are just trying to keep it out of the press.
Regardless, every official news report should be viewed as who benefits because there are no accidental releases anymore.
LikeLike
Regardless, every official news report should be viewed as who benefits because there are no accidental releases anymore.
That is true, but these reports are unsourced, so you have no idea where they are coming from. If I knew that Kevin Warren authorized the leak, then I would be very impressed. But it could be an assistant to an AD somewhere, and you have no idea what their motivations are. The media have a voracious appetite for material, and sports reporters don’t have the strict rules on anonymity that reputable hard news reporters do.
Just remember that about 95%+ of realignment rumors turn out to be false.
LikeLike
One possible scenario:
I’m not going to say this will happen, but:
B10 will add UW + Cal, but with looooong buy-in periods (not reaching full payout until 2036 when the ACC dissolves).
B10 adds ND and Stanford in 2036 (maybe before) when the ACC inevitably falls apart.
Also FSU and Miami in 2036 (no buy-in period needed for those 2).
At that point, it comes down to whether the B10 wants or will get UNC+Duke+UVa+GTech. If the B10 does, the SEC adds Clemson, VTech, NCSU, and another school (OKSU? KU? UH? Don’t underestimate Houston, both the school and the metro as a hugely important recruiting ground for the SEC schools).
The football playoffs will essentially be the B10 bracket and the SEC bracket, 7 teams on each side (regular conference winner gets a bye to make the regular season games meaningful for the leaders), winners meeting in the college super bowl.
Total B10 payout slightly above the SEC. Per capita B10 payout slightly below.
LikeLike
B10 will add UW + Cal, but with looooong buy-in periods (not reaching full payout until 2036 when the ACC dissolves).
The thing is, even the best chess player cannot confidently predict moves 14 years into the future. If you add UW and Cal, you have to believe those are the right moves even if your 14-year predictions do not happen.
Consider the additions of Rutgers and Maryland. Perhaps those moves anticipated the potential to add UVA and UNC in the distant future. But those moves have also paid off lavishly on their own, and thus do not depend on Delany being right about anything else.
LikeLike
Having TAMU, I don’t see much value in UH to the SEC. Nor does OkSU add much. At least KU brings hoops, a rival for MO, and a new state.
LikeLike
Might the Cal/Oreg/Stan/Wash package be part of a proxy battle between Fox and ESPN?
There’s been talk ESPN wants to assimilate the Pac quartet into some sort of package with the ACC (which would explain the recent Pac-10 low-ball offer from Bristol). That’s what might have spurred Warren to action, perhaps quicker than he might have liked. Also, B1G presidents may have heard of the ESPN proposal and don’t want to lose Stanford and Berkeley for a dozen years.
LikeLike
Pretty much anything is possible at this point.
LikeLike
WHAT IF! (yes, I’m going there, based on Warren’s ‘Over the next five years…’ comment) Sankey and Warren intend a coordinated, 6 or 7 school power grab from the ACC, crippling it’s GOR. Just perhaps, as posited by Andrew above, the reason Warren didn’t mention UNC/Duke/UVA is because they have let it be known they intend to go to the SEC with Clemson. That brings the SEC to twenty. The question is, if two 24 super conferences is in the offing, might they not round out their Big12 pod with Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska? Yes I went there. Nebraska’s match-up/rivalry value is MUCH greater against Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas than the B1G schools, and their recruiting would likely improve. it would definitely be a feather in the cap of the SEC to poach the Huskers from the B1G, and just maybe the B1G wouldn’t shed a tear. I personally love NEB in the B1G, but if 24 is the number it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
LikeLike
Sankey and Warren intend a coordinated, 6 or 7 school power grab from the ACC
Not happening. These giant coordinated moves of several institutions are just not happening.
You have Realignment Fever.
LikeLike
I believe that would be illegal, colluding to violate a third party’s existing contract. Lawyers would have a field day with the money involved.
LikeLike
Well that would be the reason for publicly talking about it since he can’t talk in person.
Not that I think its happening.
LikeLike
Yeah, you can’t coordinate the necessary details publicly. Plus, colluding in public still probably gets you sued for interfering with the existing contract.
LikeLike
Hot take: ESPN’s lowball offer to the P12 shows that the P12 and the B12 are looking at small offers. The ACC’s much-criticized media deal will actually keep them in 3rd place for payouts through 2036.
LikeLike
The question is to what extent other media partners want Pac-12 content. Until we know that, there is no reason for ESPN to put in a high bid — they would just be negotiating against themselves.
Nobody yet has suggested a plausible way out of the GoR, and I do not see a reason why ESPN would generously pay a lot more. So yes, I suspect the ACC is stuck until 2036. It’s John Swofford’s gift to ESPN that keeps giving and giving.
LikeLike
I think the per capita payouts for the Pac, B12, and ACC will be about the same, but the ACC has the best remaining brands in those 3 conferences so in that sense, they will be underpaid.
LikeLike
IMO it will go PAC > Big 12 > ACC unless the ACCN starts producing serious money. $17 million is a very low bar to cross.
LikeLike
Pretty certain the ACC payout is about double that now.
LikeLike
https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2022/05/analysis-2021-acc-revenue.html
The total payout averaged $36.1M this last year, but the ACC TV deal itself averaged about $240M ($17M/school) and the deal isn’t even half complete yet. They do also get ACCN money, though, which is $7M more. Then you add the CFP ($7M) and the NCAA tournament ($4-5M) and other revenue sources in.
17 + 7 + 7 + 5 = 36
So the more fair comparison is the ACC at around $24M (and going up with Comcast ACCN carriage all year) right now. That’s the target for the B12 and P12.
LikeLike
With its many private institutions and smaller enrollments, I can’t imagine ACCN per-school revenue ever rivaling what a similar setup would create for the Big 12, even without the Four Corners schools (although the relatively sparse populations of Iowa, Kansas and Oklahoma might equalize matters).
LikeLike
It’s closer than you might think.
B12 (remaining 8 only): average = 20.2k
1 at 12k
7 at 20-30k
1 at 40k
1 at 50k
ACC (incl. ND): average = 23.3k
1 at 9k
4 at 12-18k
6 at 20-30k
3 at 36k
1 at 45k
The new 4 for the B12 are big:
1 at 34k
2 at 47k
1 at 72k
The new average will be 30.1k
But they need time to grow their brands.
LikeLike
Something wrong with B12#. If only one school is below 20K not possible to have a 20.2K average. Actual enrollment average of the remaining 8 is 24.5K, even closer to the 23.3K you calculated for the ACC. B12 with new members 33K.
LikeLike
Yes, I hurried and screwed up in a couple of ways. Thanks for catching it. And yes, they are still pretty close in size.
FIXED:
B12 (remaining 8 only): average = 25.2k
1 at 12k
6 at 20-31k
1 at 41k
ACC (incl. ND): average = 23.3k
1 at 9k
4 at 12-18k
6 at 20-30k
3 at 36k
1 at 45k
The new 4 for the B12 are big:
1 at 34k
2 at 47k
1 at 72k
The new average will be 33.5k
LikeLike
I (finally) found the actual number. I posted the twitter link in a new thread below.
(397,411,225 – Notre Dame Payout) / 14. In all likelihood no better than 28 million per school. The ACCN is doing much better than I would have guessed.
LikeLike
‘Curmudgeon-on-loop’ is a time -tested classic. “That’ll NEVER happen! ” (then it happens). “That’ll NEVER happen!” (then it happens). Anyone who actually believes the ACC’s GOR’s will remain in tact for 14 more years is an honorable member of that group. Fortunately, based on Warren’s and Sankey’s comments, coupled with the market forces that are the REAL driving force behind this realignment, I’ll only have to wait, at most, 2-3 more years before it transpires. “NEVER!” you say. We’ll see.
LikeLike
I will give you 50% credit for that answer. You are right, there are many “nevers” that have eventually come to pass. But the set of “nevers” is infinite, and infinite things will not all happen.
You are on much safer ground when you predict moves that resemble others that have gone before. Nobody yet has ever broken a grant of rights, so while I won’t say it is impossible, it’s not proven possible either.
Perhaps the biggest indication you are wrong is Texas and Oklahoma. Their grant of rights has much less time to run than the ACC’s. And yet, a year after they announced they were joining the SEC, they still have not negotiated a way out of it.
The world is full of nevers that eventually happened. However, they are outnumbered by the much larger set of nevers that sill have not happened.
LikeLike
Texas and OU haven’t tested their GOR because Fox won’t allow it. Fox has no interest in allowing UT and OU to leave early, dilute its product, and enhance ESPN one second earlier than is required. That is NOT necessarily the circumstance with the ACC GOR, particularly if teams were going from the ACC (ESPN) to the SEC (ESPN).
LikeLike
Fox has no say over the GOR. That’s between the schools. It’s the other 8 that won’t let them out early without a huge penalty.
Fox and ESPN make deals all the time. If that was the only issue, they’d figure it out.
LikeLike
Note that USC and UCLA aren’t breaking their GOR either. Who is forbidding that, since Fox and ESPN both have half the T1 rights of each conference?
LikeLike
Well, ESPN may not soon in the B10.
LikeLike
True, but they do for the duration of the GOR USC and UCLA are signed to.
LikeLike
The problem with a short dissolution of the ACC is that there are too many teams with major uncertainty. They will not agree to simply walk away without the huge payouts due from teams that want to leave.
What if the SEC or B1G do not want to go to 20 each? Or even to 20. Where do the others go – merge with PAC leftovers? The Big 12?
A couple of teams, Louisville and Pitt would fit in with the Big 12, but they might want to keep the ACC together to demand payments from other teams. Where do Wake, Syracuse or BC go? Any reason for the Big 12 to go for them? Maybe BC to get into Boston. Cuse will really have nowhere to go, other than as part of merger with the PAC, if the ACC dissolves. Wake does not even have that.
Are GaTech or even Duke sure of a soft landing?
I am sure that the SEC or B1G will not get involved in any discussions until a school approaches them and even under those circumstances, neither the SEC nor B1G want to be sued for tortious interference or whatever.
Is Clemson that sure that the SEC is waiting? Would a move to the Big 12 be enough for them? What is the guarantee to Miami?
Actually, there are probably only five or six schools, including ND, that are virtually guaranteed an upgrade. Every other school is running some risk, so they will just sit back and collect hundreds of millions from departing schools, if any.
LikeLike
Actually, there are probably only five or six schools, including ND, that are virtually guaranteed an upgrade.
And it could be fewer. ND and UNC may be the only clear no-brainer additions that the SEC and the Big Ten would make without hesitation. Let’s say ND chooses the Big Ten and UNC chooses the SEC. There will be a plus-1 for ND, and it could very well be a Pac school—you cannot say for sure. If the Big Ten doesn’t get UNC, is there any ACC school it would add immediately? Maybe not. The SEC might take UNC+Duke, and then call it a day.
The above is not my preferred scenario nor my prediction. I am just saying, it could believably play out that way. For the ACC to vote to dissolve, a majority needs to be sure they land in a better place, and there definitely are not eight who could believe that. (And we don’t know for sure whether the GoR dissolves automatically if the conference does.)
LikeLike
Only ND is guaranteed a landing spot. I’d say FSU is 90%+ guaranteed. I wouldn’t say UNC definitely is.
LikeLike
The SEC already tried to invite UNC before; their former chancellor basically said the SEC leadership wanted to invite UNC when Maryland bolted to the Big Ten.
“I feel OK saying Carolina could have gone to the SEC if we wanted to.”
You really think he’d say that unless he got affirmative responses from Florida/Georgia/etc. presidents or the SEC leadership?
Nobody is going to say no to UNC, not the SEC or the Big Ten. They’re in too valuable a location as the flagship of a huge growth state and arguably the most prominent university between Penn State and Georgia.
LikeLike
Zeek, that was in a world before the SEC added Texas and OU and the B10 added USC and UCLA.
We don’t even have to guess about the B10 adding UNL because the B10 did, because UNL was additive back then. But would UNL be additive today? Same goes for RU and UMD.
LikeLike
So is the “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” predictor, knowing they will never be held accountable.
Lots of people were convinced UT and OU were heading to the SEC this year, they just needed a few months to negotiate. The GOR couldn’t possibly stop them. Funny, it looks to me like they are still in the B12. And everyone involved is still saying it will be 2025, though the B12 is open to an early exit at the right price.
Lots of people said the B10 wouldn’t stop after NE (get MO + KU, etc.), and now they are convinced the B10 is just waiting to finish some negotiations before adding 2-4 more P12 teams.
LikeLike
Texas and OU haven’t tested their GOR because Fox won’t allow it. Fox has no interest in allowing UT and OU to leave early, dilute its product, and enhance ESPN one second earlier than is required. That is NOT necessarily the circumstance with the ACC GOR, particularly if teams were going from the ACC (ESPN) to the SEC (ESPN).
LikeLike
I think the per capita payouts for the Pac, B12, and ACC will be about the same, but the ACC has the best remaining brands in those 3 conferences so in that sense, they will be underpaid.
If you didn’t know the media deals, and only looked at the schools, you would probably rather be the ACC than anyone else. And the ACC’s media deal isn’t structurally bad; it’s just way underpriced and locked in for too long. In contrast, the Pac-12’s deal is structurally bad: they never should have launched eight brand new networks without a media partner.
LikeLike
Chuck Neinas, the former Big Eight and Big XII commissioner, says Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri should not have left the Big XII
He says: “What is interesting to me, and I’m Monday Morning Quarterbacking, if you take a look at what has happened to Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado, how have they been doing where they are? If they had remained with the Big 12 Conference, they would have done better. Maybe not as well financially, but they would be more comfortable, especially Missouri and Nebraska’s recruiting ahs been hurt from departing from the Big 12, because they aren’t getting many [recruits] out of Texas.”
Neinas knows there is no “maybe” about the financials for Nebraska and Missouri. That is just a figure of speech. He is probably right competitively, but still I doubt those two schools regret their decisions, as the financials are so compelling. Some of the fans might have regrets, but fans don’t get a vote.
I am not so sure what Colorado would decide if they had a do-over, as the Pac-12 has turned into a tire fire, which I am sure they did not expect because no one did. This is not to suggest that Colorado would go back to the Big XII now. But if there were a Ghost of Conferences Future who could show them what they were getting into, would they still do it? Maybe not.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, NE recruits less from TX now. But that means they recruit more elsewhere. Is that necessarily bad? They recruit in the areas where they play.
Recruiting worse players is different. But they aren’t recruiting worse, either. Maybe they are just coaching worse.
2010, 2022 NE players on roster by state:
NE – 74, 63
TX – 23, 7
CA – 13, 4
CO – 7, 3
MO – 7, 3
FL – 5, 7
LA – 4, 5
AZ – 3, 7
IL – 3, 2
GA – 2, 10
OH – 2, 0
IA – 1, 11
KS – 1, 4
MS – 1, 1
MD – 1, 0
NV – 1, 0
ND – 1, 0
VA – 1, 0
NJ – 0, 5
MN – 0, 4
MI – 0, 3
AL – 0, 2
OK – 0, 2
SD – 0, 2
Intl – 0, 2
IN – 0, 1
MT – 0, 1
SC – 0, 1
WI – 0, 1
Impacted by move to B10:
TX -16
CO -4
MO -4
KS +3
B10 footprint +20
Changes for other reasons:
NE -11
CA -9
AZ +4
Southeast +6
Recruiting rankings:
2001 – #39
2002 – #35
2003 – #35
2004 – #26
2005 – #8
2006 – #19
2007 – #21
2008 – #24
2009 – #40
2010 – #26
2022 – #32
NE’s recruiting wasn’t great before they made the move to the B10. They just couldn’t keep coaching them up like they used to do.
I think NE was going to lose a lot of games in any conference.
LikeLike
-Nebraska was known for going 9-4 under Bo Pelini in the Big 12…and kept going 9-4 in the Big Ten. The coaching situation since firing Pelini has been their biggest problem.
-Colorado collapsed as a football program well before they moved to the Pac 12. Not sure why they would’ve done a better job if they stayed in the Big 12.
-Missouri was lucky to walk into a time when the SEC East was particularly down…they might have made a few more bowl games if they had stayed in the Big 12, but the glory of their 2 SEC East championship years probably gave their fans more overall excitement than they would have had if they had stayed.
The Big Ten West and SEC East were steps up from the Big 12 North (where they all played before), but not massively so (at least until Georgia hired Kirby) . The Pac 12 South was probably a step up as well, but USC and UCLA being down kept it below those other divisions. Of course it’s going to get much harder for Nebraska and Missouri with further expansion and the ending of divisional play.
LikeLike
I can’t see the Big Ten ever trying to pressure ND by closing off playoff access. That’s not why ND would join the Big Ten anyways, I don’t think national championship path would be the central issue.
The two issues that are likely to cause ND to join the Big Ten eventually are 1) future media deals and viewership numbers, and 2) quality of scheduling (which relates to 1).
If/when Big Ten/SEC conference realignment continues (by the mid-2030s at the latest), it is likely that the ACC loses more of its markets/alums/fanbases/flagships.
That plays into both issues: 1) As media moves more towards streaming, it will be a lot harder for ND to generate viewership for its games than teams in the Big Ten/SEC which can count on millions more alums/fans of the conferences’ teams as a giant captive audience that will seek out the games involving conference members.
It’s not an immediate problem for ND given the primacy of sports to linear TV, which will only grow. But as more viewers defect/cut the cord and spend more time streaming on their TV than watching pay tv bundles, there will be a point where the number of people with pay tv is likely to reach the 40-60 million range before stabilizing. Where the numbers stabilize will be important, but in a future where you have to supplement broadcast TV viewer numbers with streaming numbers, it’s very hard to fight that battle alone.
ND perhaps is one of the few that can try to make it work solo, but at the core of it, their audience is their fanbase + the fanbase of their opponent + general sports viewer that flips channels and sees a highly ranked ND and wants to watch.
If you degrade the value of the matchups (see ACC losing more schools like FSU/Clemson/Miami/etc.), it starts to get difficult to see how they’ll manage to keep viewers coming. Especially if NBC has to use Peacock to try to supplement the viewership.
Even if there’s a separate streaming deal or NBC moves into streaming in a much bigger way (say through a merger with Warner to merge Peacock into HBO Max), it’s still going to be way more difficult to grab random college football fans to watch ND in the future.
And if the schedules leave a lot to be desired, that just compounds the issue. If you get to a point where ND is just drawing a million or two million for even its “bigger” games, that’s probably the point at which NBC is no longer willing to pay >$50 million a year (if they go that big for ND). Of course they want to add shoulder programming, but unless it’s the Big Ten, hard to see how that would work.
There’s a lot that has to play out with this story, but if ND ever joins a conference, my bet is that it’s mainly due to media changes making it harder for them to draw viewership and earn the media bucks that go along with that outside of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yep, and I think it is inevitable that the B10 and SEC (probably once both leagues are around 20 schools each) will use their 1 P5 OOC game in a B10-SEC Challenge (with maybe a few schools excused to play traditional rivals). Why leave money on the table when you can monetize the OOC part of your schedule too?
LikeLike
I don’t see that in football. Schools want the freedom to play whoever they want OOC. Sometimes that’ll be an SEC team, but often not. If they’ve got ND, or a P12 school, or an ACC school, that’s their P5 OOC game. Those games are valuable too, and they serve the purposes of the school.
Then they’ll have 1-2 buy games. That’s where the TV money is ignored in favor of ticket sales and supporting the local economy. I’m not sure you’ll convince schools to give that up.
LikeLike
Oh, money would convince them.
LikeLike
Large state schools get tremendous political pressure to support the local economy 7 times per year. In small college towns, many businesses make or break their year based on those weekends. And in cities like Columbus, the state government wants those tax dollars to be spent here. Coaches and ADs also want the home games, and TV doesn’t much care about locations. Making even more postseason games be B10 vs SEC would make financial sense and is more plausible than convincing schools to give up their 7 home games.
Nobody is offering sufficient extra money to make that happen regularly. OSU makes over $10M directly on a home game, plus all the donations required to buy tickets, and those games are already paid for by the TV deal. Look how the neutral site kickoff game fad is being reduced. The money just isn’t there to justify doing that every year.
Plus, who cares about IL vs MsSU? The big name games would be valuable, but the rest would just be inventory games.
LikeLike
Did I mention giving up 7 home games a year? No.
But giving up the “freedom” of scheduling your 1 big OOC game for more money? I would definitely not bet against that.
And of course the big name games are the ones that would be valuable. But with all the big brand names in the B10 and SEC in this world of a mega P2, you’re going to have a lot of heavyweight matchups.
LikeLike
Your idea would force some schools to drop to 6 home games. Iowa and USC already have locked non-SEC OOC rivalries.
And many B10 schools don’t want to play the SEC every year. Why should they? How much more is anyone going to pay for it? Is playing the SEC inherently more valuable than ND or Clemson/FSU/Miami/UW/UO? Is NW/Vandy any better than NW/Duke? Does anyone watch IU/UK in football?
The big brands are already playing big games most years, so there’s no extra money to be made here. It’d just restrict choice and aggravate everyone.
LikeLike
Brian, I know reading comprehension isn’t a strength of yours but I did say this: “with maybe a few schools excused to play traditional rivals”.
Also, this is with the mega B10 including ND.
As for why a challenge series would generate more money, that’s because OOC games currently aren’t monetized well. They aren’t included in conference TV contracts, for instance because TV networks can’t count on the games that individual schools schedule OOC. They’re paid for ad hoc, but with OOC games being scheduled a decade+ out, some matchup that might have looked inticing in 2012 could turn out to be a clunker in 2022. A challenge series solves that issue because it would match up the top teams currently resulting in the best matchups and more viewership.
LikeLike
You never said the B10 would include ND in your scenario, you just said “around 20 schools each.” That should be clear since my immediate response mentioned ND being an OOC game.
I was responding to the previous comment, and didn’t look back to your previous comment. So yes you said that, but I didn’t recall it at the time. It was out of sight, out of mind. That caveat addresses the 7 home game issue.
It doesn’t address 2 other key points:
1. How much more would networks possibly pay for a slight improvement in 2-3 OOC games (the rest would be on par with prior games scheduled)? They already get big OOC games from the big brands.
2. Why would the power schools give up their scheduling autonomy for such little gain? Depending on membership (you didn’t specify the schools added on either side), there could be important regions they never get to play in, or not nearly as often as they wish. There may be particular schools they wish to play, or cities they want to be in.
Couldn’t the same benefits come from just a few kickoff classic games each season, letting the powers rotate in and out of it so they also can play elsewhere? And at that point, you’re back to the current model where schools can play who they want. If 40+ teams are in the B10 and SEC, they will naturally play each other a decent amount OOC. There’s no need or benefit to forcing it.
LikeLike
Under the current setup, yes, the power schools try to schedule the same tier brands, but it’s hit or miss because the scheduling is done a decade or more before. Under a Challenge setup, you don’t run in to those difficulties. And by the time you have a 20+ B10 and SEC, they will cover pretty much all populated regions of the country between them (beside New England). I know you always look backwards, Brian, but would schools sacrifice “freedom” for a few million more a year? Yes. Heck, the B10 started an Alliance with the Pac and ACC when setting up a Challenge with those conferences _didn’t_ make financial sense. So you think that even if a Challenge with the SEC would make more money, the B10 and SEC would pass that up, Brian? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
The biggest problem with your idea is that you think there’s millions per school to be made from it. It might be worth a few million total, which when spread over that many schools is peanuts.
LikeLike
Brian, all I can say is that you’re backwards-looking and can’t conceive of pretty much any future that isn’t like the present. It will be millions per school.
LikeLike
If you did studies, I would bet you would find ND has one of the oldest fan bases. That Irish Catholic tie is not as strong as it was. They are still in an exceptionally strong position. They might not be 20 years from now.
LikeLike
Bullet,
That may be true. But here’s stats for all of CFB.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105202/college-football-interest-age/
Basically, all age groups are equally interested except 45-64 year olds. That is the most avid fan group (26% avid vs 20% at other ages). Roughly half of all people are not CFB fans at all.
LikeLike
Dodd now confirming McMurphy’s reporting
LikeLike
Interesting, but it’s not clear that it’s anything immediate.
My understanding of Dodd’s reporting (and he may be getting this from CBS sources negotiating with the Big Ten/FOX/BTN) is that the Big Ten is trying to get escalators built into the contracts for specific teams being added to the conference in the future.
That appears to be the hold up; he quoted $250 million (“about a quarter billion” is what he said) as the additional value for Washington/Oregon/Stanford/Cal to the Big Ten.
So that’s the first time we’ve heard something like that, and he may be getting that number from his CBS sources who are negotiating for a potential CBS weekly game deal.
Obviously this may be the final hold up right now, the Big Ten is trying to get escalators built in for basically every ACC and Pac-12 team that they may consider adding in the future.
That would match the reporting from other reporters like McMurphy that the Big Ten is looking at 10 other schools or whatever like Miami/FSU. Getting escalators into the tv deals for every potential contingency may be the final details holding up the signing.
LikeLike
That would make a lot of sense.
LikeLike
That appears to be the hold up; he quoted $250 million (“about a quarter billion” is what he said) as the additional value for Washington/Oregon/Stanford/Cal to the Big Ten.
So that’s the first time we’ve heard something like that, and he may be getting that number from his CBS sources who are negotiating for a potential CBS weekly game deal.
That’s roughly the value Canzano’s former Fox sports exec was throwing around (60 for UO and UW)
LikeLike
I thought he had UW + UO total of $70mm and Stanford + Cal total of $100.
Still, it’s in the ballpark, and probably why the B10 is negotiating for the escalator to be $250mm for those 4. At $250mm, the tier 1/2 TV money would only be slightly diluted and made up for by BTN money, alum donations from visits, and extra OOS students tuition. If adding those 4 schools means only $170mm added, it’s too dilutive and the B10 probably won’t add those 4.
The B10 may be willing to promise TV networks that those 4 would be willing to play weeknights/the after dark timeslot/whenever to get to $250mm and tell those 4 those are the terms of the deal.
LikeLike
You are correct. Could the 50% bump in value be the difference between WA/OR/CA/Stanford being in the PAC vs. those 4 being in the B1G? It is also to the B1G’s advantage to get the highest possible bump in any contract contingency so maybe the value is somewhat stretched.
LikeLike
There is definitely be more value to them playing in the B10 vs. in the leftover Pac.
LikeLike
@Richard – You are right, I knew I should have looked up the source before I posted.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gut-punch-comes-with
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gut-punch-comes-with
Bob Thompson the former president of Fox Sports Networks.
P12: $500M
USC + UCLA: $200M
Cal + Stanford: $90M (which he then split equally when talking about schools)
UW + UO: $60M (which he then split equally when talking about schools)
That would be $150M for those 4 schools, a far cry from $250M. But then, these were their values in the P12. They probably gain some value playing more brands in the B10. Call it $160M, or $40M per school on average.
The new deal is expected to be around $75M/school, so that’s a problem unless these 4 are willing to take a lesser amount. Maybe they could do a buy in so nobody loses money, but it takes a few years with escalation (at 5% or whatever) to grow the pot until everyone gets an equal share.
$1.0B/14 = $71.4M/school
$1.2B/16 = $75.0M/school
$1.35B/20 = $67.5M/school (-$7.5M/school)
I don’t think everyone would take $7.5M less every year to make those 4 whole. But maybe they’d start at $72M each and take slower escalation as those 4 caught up.
72*16 = $1152M
1350-1152 = 198/4 = $49.5M
Or let those 4 take less until the expanded CFP starts, which is expected to add another $15M per school or so. When that kicks in, the newbies could catch up from that pool so that no member ever drops in revenue payout. Or some combination of the two plans, most likely.
1350+15*20 = $1650M
1650/20 = $82.5M
Note:
Some of the values came in a Canzano mailbag on 7/4, but were from the same source. I excerpted those below, the others are in the link (I’ve found comments with 2 links often get rejected by the blog).
Q: How will Cal ever pay off its stadium debt now? Getting into the Big Ten is a fantasy, so we’ll be left with mid-major TV deal money. There’s no way out of a $100M(?) debt with that. Do you think it’s a possibility that Cal shuts down its football program within a few years? — @RuminatingOrion
A: There’s a lot of ball to play before we get to a “shut down” situation. Cal is paired with Stanford and sits in the Bay Area television market. Because of that former Fox Sports Network president Bob Thompson told me he believes Cal/Stanford are worth $90 million total in annual television revenue. That is a huge advantage.
…
Q: Who is more attractive to the Big Ten, Stanford or Oregon? — @williamswes
A: The ex-Fox Sports Network president, Bob Thompson, placed Oregon’s media-rights value at $30 million and Stanford’s at $45 million when I pressed him.
LikeLike
Canzano’s relies on Thompson a lot. Thompson is obviously competent, but still, it is a yellow flag when you have only one source. Thompson’s blind spots, if any, become Canzano’s.
LikeLike
Marc,
How many sources are there for P12 media valuations, though?
Anyway, Wilner also had a source (unnamed) that said P12 = $500M, P10 = $300M, and said USC was worth 30% of the $500M (so USC = $150M, UCLA = $50M like I said before). I don’t know if he ever gave values for the remaining schools. If so, I didn’t find them.
https://tucson.com/sports/pac-12-hotline/pac-12-hotlines-survival-guide-media-valuations-suggest-expansion-doesn-t-make-financial-sense/article_328aba62-fe1b-11ec-b92e-2704547d3176.html
LikeLike
z33k,
Adding in escalators could certainly slow the process, especially if they want them pre-negotiated in value rather than a generic clause.
I tend to think the recent additions, plus ND talking with NBC, plus all the back and forth with 3-4 companies discussing rights packages is sufficient to make the process take a while. Each company may want a slightly different version of a package, or want to add needs specific to them. Things like how many 10:30 ET games they can demand, how many weeknight games, how often teams of each level would be available for certain windows, weekly picking order, etc.
The B10 is “looking” at every P5 school + ND to some degree:
ACC – UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, GT, FSU, Miami (probably already dismissed the rest)
B12 – KU (probably already dismissed the rest)
P12 – UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UA, ASU, CU, UU (probably already dismissed the rest)
SEC – UT, OU, TAMU, UF, UGA, MO (probably already dismissed the rest)
Ind – ND
Most realistic options:
ACC – UVA, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU, Miami (in 2036ish)
B12 – none
P12 – UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
SEC – none
Ind – ND
That’s 11. Maybe they’ve dismissed Duke, or maybe they didn’t include ND because it’s a given they’d say yes. Or maybe 10 was a rough estimate.
I’ll address the $250M elsewhere.
LikeLike
This Dodd report definitely reinforces the McMurphy report.
The most interesting thing about the McMurphy report is that it didn’t list UNC or Virginia as targets/candidates for the B1G.
What I’m seeing talked about various places is, I think this means the Big Ten is going to, for now, raid the Pac 12. And as far as the ACC – it seems the SEC and ESPN have an advantage there. And UNC in particular seems to be more or less locked up by the SEC. Maybe Virginia as well.
The Big Ten may have moved on from those two and are now looking to see if they can get FSU and Miami. I think Miami is more attainable for the Big Ten than FSU. FSU is maybe possible but there are a lot of people saying the SEC has FSU locked up as well. If the Big Ten doesn’t get FSU then maybe Miami and Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Feel free to show anywhere it is reported that the B10 is only considering those 6 schools.
Notre Dame wasn’t on the list either. Does that mean the B10 has given up ever adding ND, or that they secretly know the SEC has an advantage with ND? Is ND in particular more or less locked up by the SEC as well, since they weren’t mentioned?
I’m sure all the SEC fan boards are reading into it the same way you are, but that doesn’t make it true. All that was reported was that the B10 was looking at these 6 schools. Maybe that’s because they’d already looked at UVA, UNC, ND, and others so they already have that info in hand. Maybe it’s because the B10 has given up on the non-FL ACC schools. Nobody really knows.
LikeLike
I take that back about ND, it was on the list. My apologies. Everyone I’ve seen discussing it has focused on the other 6. I had to go find the article again and re-read it. Unfortunately you can’t edit a previous comment.
LikeLike
Yes, if you read the McMurphy article, it does include Notre Dame, and it frames it as those are the 7 schools the Big Ten is considering, and it doesn’t include UNC.
I don’t consider my self a total SEC homer. Back when I lived in Missouri and went to Mizzou, they were in the Big 8/Big 12. I didn’t grow up an SEC fan. They joined the SEC long after I left. And I went to grad school at Northwestern and I lived in Big Ten country for a big chunk of my life and I’ve been to lots of Big Ten games. I consider myself a fan and an alum of both leagues. I want both leagues to prosper.
Here’s the thing. I’ve read this board off and on for over 10 years. I saw how you all talked about Texas. Many of you were convinced that Texas would rather be in the Big Ten because it’s an academic “fit”. It turned out in the end they’d rather be in the SEC. I strongly suspect the same kind of thing is happening with USC. The SEC has a strong draw to southern institutions. That’s why Texas joined, and UNC I think will join for the exact same reason. Certainly a lot of SEC folks think so. But we’ll see.
But the Big Ten has a lot of other options besides UNC. They’ll be fine if they don’t get them.
LikeLike
*I strongly suspect the same kind of thing is happening with UNC.
LikeLike
I don’t think UNC itself is necessarily leaning either way at the moment, and I think many of us have said we think they could go either way. Then we mostly focus on discussing the “what if?” they join the B10 side, because most of us aren’t SEC fans. It doesn’t mean we’re assuming it will happen, we just don’t find the other side worth talking about. I certainly couldn’t care less about who’s in the SEC except for how it impacts the B10. I’m also not very interested in P12, B12, or ACC realignment except how it impacts the B10.
UNC’s #1 choice will always be to stay in the ACC but make enough money to be competitive. After that, who knows? I don’t believe anyone online that claims they have sources or insider info. The people that will be making the decision in over a decade probably aren’t even working at UNC right now. It doesn’t matter what the current people think, or what the fans think, or what the person on the street in Charlotte thinks.
And I think lots of people read way too much into every report/rumor/tweet about realignment. How often is that stuff the whole truth and nothing but truth?
LikeLike
All we really have to go on is these reports. And McMurphy has an excellent track record as a journalist.
Also, I don’t think it’s by any means guaranteed it will be 10 years. Although that might end up being the case.
LikeLike
Until proven otherwise, GORs hold. Too many lawyers have examined them and not found a loophole to get their school out. Likewise, if the bylaws provided an easy path then schools would’ve taken it.
Any plan that relies on 8-10 schools, 2 networks and 2 superconferences working together to make something happen seems highly unlikely to me. Especially when these plans include things like “as the price of getting ND, the B10 will agree to take Pitt and Syracuse” or other such things. No conference is taking schools they don’t want just to speed up ACC dissolution.
So unless the ACC really wants to dissolve, and/or ESPN wants to let them out of their deal, I don’t see anything happening.
LikeLike
If “ESPN wants to let them out of their deal…”
Yes, that right there could be the way out. We’ll see.
LikeLike
If someone could provide a rational explanation for why a publicly traded company of that size would let such a sweetheart deal go a decade early, that theory might make more sense to me.
LikeLike
Mizzou has a highly ranked journalism school and a ton of alumni working at ESPN. I’ve heard a lot of rumors that this is a possibility among Mizzou people. I don’t know if the rumors are true.
Basically, the idea is, what if the vast majority of the actual value in the ACC is just a few of the schools. And what if those schools would be worth even more money in the SEC than they are in the ACC. And what if ESPN, as a condition of letting them out of the GOR, would steer these schools to the SEC, as ESPN basically controls the SEC entirely. What if a 20 or 20+ team super-SEC is worth a fortune to ESPN, and they don’t much care about the other schools in the ACC and are willing to cut those loose and steer them to somewhere like the Big 12? That’s basically the gist of it. Maybe it’s all rubbish. We’ll see.
But recent reporting from McMurphy and Dodd are reinforcing these rumors, which had already been out there for a while.
Supposedly the Big Ten is going to go to 20 or more, mostly by adding Pac 12 schools (steered to them by FOX), and the SEC is going to go to 20 or more, mostly by adding ACC schools (steered to them by ESPN). The leftovers will join the Big 12 or maybe start a new league. The Big Ten and SEC basically become the Premier League(s), make tons of money, maybe even end up paying players or who knows what. That’s the rumor. It’s basically a conspiracy theory, yes. But it’s not impossible. And as I said, the recent reporting by McMurphy and Dodd fits.
LikeLike
“Basically, the idea is, what if the vast majority of the actual value in the ACC is just a few of the schools. ”
That’s true to some extent in every conference. We just saw it with the B12 and P12. I think most would agree that Clemson, FSU, and Miami carry a lot of the value. With a second tier of VT, UNC, etc.
“And what if those schools would be worth even more money in the SEC than they are in the ACC.”
Worth more money to whom?
Sure they would be, to the SEC TV deal. But how much more, when the SEC already has all the SC and FL markets? That’s where they lose me. Sure, they add some big games but the SEC already isn’t lacking for those. Say they add another game of the week package. ESPN is paying $300M for that with 14 teams. Say those 3 are worth another $250M package. That’s only slightly additive (+ $1-2M per school). So the SEC would be okay with it, but it’s not a windfall for them.
To ESPN? They’d be paying them roughly $50M more each per year. So would they net more than $150M in increased subscriber fees and ad revenue? After all, they would also devastate the ACCN and all the revenue from showing ACC games.
“And what if ESPN, as a condition of letting them out of the GOR, would steer these schools to the SEC, as ESPN basically controls the SEC entirely.”
First, what does “steering” consist of? What if a school wants to go independent instead, or join the B10? That doesn’t sound legal to me, but Frank or someone can opine on that.
Second, ESPN has nothing to do with the GOR. That’s between the schools. All ESPN can do is let the ACC out of the TV contract if the ACC agrees or there is some clause ESPN can activate.
But if WF and BC refuse to go along, what happens?
“What if a 20 or 20+ team super-SEC is worth a fortune to ESPN, and they don’t much care about the other schools in the ACC and are willing to cut those loose and steer them to somewhere like the Big 12?”
A 14-team SEC is worth a fortune to ESPN. So is a 16-team version, and any larger version. But the SEC also costs them a fortune, plus they still might be paying the remainder of the ACC for very low value games. And they will have angered a lot of fans.
I would like to see someone credible (sports media expert, etc.) crunch the numbers and show how this would work, and then find a lawyer to explain how it could be done. Until then, it’s all fan board dreams to me.
“But recent reporting from McMurphy and Dodd are reinforcing these rumors, which had already been out there for a while.”
There is zero substance to their reporting to justify the belief in this. It’s people reading what they want to hear into the few sentences actually being said.
There have always been tons of realignment rumors. Almost all of them end up being laughably wrong.
“Supposedly the Big Ten is going to go to 20 or more, mostly by adding Pac 12 schools (steered to them by FOX), and the SEC is going to go to 20 or more, mostly by adding ACC schools (steered to them by ESPN).”
People said the B10 was going to 20-24 the instant they announced USC and UCLA. It was going to happen any day, they said. That just how fans and rumors work.
And of course if the B10 expands, the SEC must respond so naturally that meant the ACC must be raided. So people created all sorts of crazy explanations for how this could happen. This same logic was applied a year ago to explain how the B10 would raid the ACC to counterbalance the SEC expanding.
“That’s the rumor. It’s basically a conspiracy theory, yes. But it’s not impossible.”
Few things are 100% impossible. That doesn’t make them likely.
To be clear, I’m blaming you for this. I see it all over the internet. I just find it a stretch when people try to draw deep conclusions from the simple reporting that a source said the B10 is looking at 7 schools. It didn’t say only 7. It didn’t say all other schools have been eliminated from consideration. It didn’t say why other schools weren’t being considered. It didn’t give a timeframe. It didn’t say that another source said the SEC had focused in on certain ACC schools, or that certain ACC schools were leaning a certain way. And yet people draw conclusion on all of that, and more.
LikeLike
Like I said, I have no idea if it’s true. It’s just something I keep hearing.
And no, the current reporting in no way confirms the rumors at all. But they do circumstantially fit the rumors if the rumors are in fact true.
I don’t know how likely they are. I guess I’d say somewhat unlikely, but far from impossible. I don’t agree that they’re “highly unlikely”. Too many crazy things have happened already to call this highly unlikely.
LikeLike
^^^
Andy,
That should’ve said I’m not blaming you for this.
LikeLike
Washington/Oregon/Cal/Stanford to the Big Ten is worth around $250 million according to Dodd’s reporting (he said “quarter billion” would be added to the deals).
He probably has inside sources at CBS that are negotiating potential escalators into the contracts so this is probably very high quality info.
LikeLike
Tells you how brutal the ESPN offer to the Pac-12 is if it’s the same as what the Big Ten is looking at for just 4 of the schools.
ESPN offered Pac-12 just $245 million for the remaining 10 schools (based on the reports from 365). Of course that’s a lowball since FOX isn’t bidding and they have an exclusive window, but still interesting to note.
LikeLike
z33k,
Those schools weren’t worth $250M in the P12, they were worth $150M according to Thompson. That leaves another $95M in value for the other 6 schools.
ASU brings Phoenix but no brand, so $40M
CU brings Denver, so $30M
UU brings SLC, so $25M
UA brings nothing (2nd school in the state)
WSU brings nothing (2nd school in the state)
OrSU brings nothing (2nd school in the state)
That seems reasonable.
LikeLike
Actually, I recall $170mm being the value estimate for the P4 in the Pac.
Whatever, it doesn’t much matter.
They’d jump to the B10 even with a 50 year buy-in.
LikeLike
Those 4 schools almost certainly hold the majority (possibly even 2/3rds or more) of the remaining Pac’s value. Note that even if those 4 schools add a quarter billion a year, that would still bring down the B10’s per capita tier 1 & 2 TV deal payout. But when you add in the BTN money and the fundraising money from visiting alums, adding them may still make sense.
Also, as a majority owner of the BTN, Fox would be most willing to pay up for expansion. CBS may not be very willing.
Adding the rest of the most valuable West Coast teams means owning the 10:30 slot and also provides more potential primetime games in mid/late Nov (on both Sat and Fri) when the original 14 schools often don’t want to play at night.
LikeLike
The quarter-billion, if true, is an intriguing in-between number. Not enough for the expansion to pay for itself, but enough that it might work after all of the intangibles are thrown in.
LikeLike
May depend on timing.
If the Big Ten takes 4 more for the 2026 season, you get the giant playoff money boost as well.
Adding those 4 and getting $250 million from escalators + $250 million from extra playoff money in 2026 is $500 million a year with just 4 more mouths to feed.
Maybe they get buy ins to scale as well but that would theoretically make it so there isn’t a big pay cut…
LikeLike
Huh? But that playoff money is coming even if those 4 aren’t added so I don’t get that logic.
LikeLike
There would be no reason for those 4 schools to not take a buy in with a minimum of six years. Their situation is analogous to UMd, not to USC/UCLA, in that they are in a league that may pay them $30 to $35 at the very maximum. If they started at the B1G at $45 million, that would be a huge increase.
The question is would the 4 even take a 10 year buy in, so that they do not get full payment until the ACC is about to explode? With loans from the league, it will take RU thirteen years to reach full share. I do not know the length of the UMd buy in.
As far as value, as part the B1G, the 4 are probably worth nearly as much as the entire PAC 10. Adding Washington-Wisconsin, e.g., would probably draw more fans than any other PAC game, other than perhaps Washington-Oregon. The B1G has collected so many super attractive schools (as has the SEC), that there are any number of games of interest.
I am not sure what UMd or Rutgers-Cal would bring, but there has to be filler somewhere.
LikeLike
Latest rumors have the Big Ten looking at seven schools – Pac-4 + ND + Miami + FSU
https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-realignment-big-ten-seven-schools-expansion
LikeLike
Bernie, even if it will take them until the ACC falls apart in 2036 for full shares, the Pac4 would still take the deal considering their alternative.
FSU and Miami likely will get full shares right from the start.
LikeLike
The question is would the 4 even take a 10 year buy in, so that they do not get full payment until the ACC is about to explode? With loans from the league, it will take RU thirteen years to reach full share.
I am guessing yes, they would accept a 10-year buy-in. Details matter, but almost any rational offer is better than they will get in the P12. RU is not comparable to any school under discussion. No school has made more than Rutgers in realignment — relative to where they otherwise would have been. (Not sure if any other school needs the loans that RU asked for.)
I hope the president of Rutgers sends the president of UVA a case of champagne every New Year’s Day. If UVA had said yes, RU would be in the American now, with no ticket out.
LikeLike
Heck, they would take a 50 year buy-in.
The financial difference between the B10 and Pac is that vast.
LikeLike
Richard,
He’s saying that the only rule is that no school ever gets less the next year than they did before. If you wait until a year when there a big influx in cash, you can spread it out such that the newbies catch up to everyone else. A lot of that depends on the CFP revenue distribution plan, but I’ve seen estimates of every P5 school getting an extra $15M per year (on average, so $300M to the B20). If every B10 member gets a $5M bump, that still leaves $200M to split among the 4 newbies to catch them up.
A similar concept is using a slower escalator for the 16 full shares so over time the other 4 can catch up.
LikeLike
Richard,
Much like with their SEC deal, if CBS is just aiming for a game a week there is no reason they should pay more. These 4 are unlikely to improve their game selection much, and they don’t get any extra inventory. Fox and others would get 18 more B10 games plus 8 more OOC games each year, and inventory has value. Especially, as you note, if they can fill the late night slot.
LikeLike
Maybe the Big 10 wants more on the west coast but wants to have Notre Dame turn the 4 team addition into at least a breakeven deal?
LikeLike
Well, we know the “wants to have Notre Dame” part is true. ND would make the financial side make sense with 3 of those 4 (Stanford, UW, and ?). It would be interesting to see if they asked Cal or UO to be #4 in that group.
I’m not sure the B10 has consensus yet on where they want to expand. The plan was the mid-Atlantic, then they got a chance to grab LA. So do they try to do both coasts, or pick one? If one, which one?
LikeLike
The Big Ten map of 2024 and the Major League Baseball map of 1958:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWiN_5XXkAI1O13?format=jpg&name=small
LikeLike
Kind of intriguing when you think about population shifts historically from the midwest to the west and now from the midwest/northeast to the south.
And LA having the largest concentration of Big Ten alums outside of the footprint.
Makes sense to go West then South just like historical population trends have gone.
LikeLike
The South (TX, FL, and southern Atlantic coast from VA on south) has grown a lot too.
So definitely don’t be surprised by the B10 expanding in to FL. They tried to enter TX but the SEC won all the big brands there. They want to enter the South Atlantic but all the schools that fit the B10 there are dilutive.
LikeLike
The most striking difference is pro vs college is the northeast. No pro league would ever consider ignoring Boston and not being in NYC, preferably with multiple teams.
LikeLike
Well, having more than 1 FBS member in the NYC metro area as a conference member is literally impossible, so there’s that.
LikeLike
“Well, having more than 1 FBS member in the NYC metro area as a conference member is literally impossible . . .”
Not true. Rutgers and Army.
LikeLike
West Point as part of metro NYC? Not too many people thought so when I lived there.
West Point is as far a drive from downtown NYC as Milwaukee is from downtown Chicago, and I’ve never heard anyone refer to Milwaukee as part of Chicagoland.
LikeLike
Richard, look at a map . . .
https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data=rOjrjjafydml_guoIJJmyZmmkT-wjUy_6WEYKrTViqpJxiyrmnuFdivFrPp8G_0TI7ml8MCqDrM-C_uRWwhapVpBzP6XZt1mk_zgUKGEbv5fkw1sh0l6fU3BBMNCDrrBdLFyqQeZmf3ATIk5XZsR4k4abrV29fixURAAYrbmOnjW2w7g79uRsonn6cMR-IhkYa9k2W411YgSq4O0zDEQBz19xx-yZnuDBJD15EiHeFX5FWE
LikeLike
West Point is across the Hudson (bridge there) from the Garrison stop on the MTA Hudson line so there are commuters that go from that area to NYC. About 90 minutes from Grand Central Station.
LikeLike
Like I said, google “New York City metro area map” and see for yourself. Orange County NY, home of West Point, is in virtually every one of them.
LikeLike
BTW, the US doesn’t consider West Point to be part of the NYC MSA either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area#/media/File:NY_Metro_Divisions.png
LikeLike
Having lived 20 miles or so from midtown Manhattan for nearly 65 years, I never heard anyone suggest that West Point is part of the NYC metro area.
Beyond that, no one ever connects sports with the Military Academy at West Point, except for the Army Navy game.
LikeLike
I had always seen the ACC TV number averaging around 17 million a year before the ACCN. According to this, the ACC schools are pulling in around 28 million depending on how they handle Notre Dame.
LikeLike
That $17 million was before ND and the GOR. I wrote down a quote from the GT AD in 2013. He said in 2014 they would receive $12.8 million in TV money and it would escalate to $22.7 million by the end of the contract (in 2027) and the average was $260 million. Assuming ND got 1/3 share, that was about $18 million per school. Now ACC has since extended that deal to 2036 with the ACC network and has revenue from that network.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-evaluating-cal-oregon-stanford-and-washington-from-pac-12-as-further-expansion-considered/
Dennis Dodds’ article. I bolded a few key tidbits. Worth a read.
The Big Ten is evaluating the worthiness of adding Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington from the Pac-12 to expand its conference to at least 20 teams, sources told CBS Sports this week.
While not confirming expansion activities with those specific schools, Warren told CBS Sports the addition of any teams beyond USC and UCLA (joining in 2024) would come after the current media rights deal is finalized in August.
“We’re not ‘targeting,'” said Warren when CBS Sports directly inquired about the candidacy of those four programs. “Like I said, my focus is on taking care of our 14 institutions.”
…
Financially, those four programs are not worth near the money now expected to be distributed to Big Ten schools with USC and UCLA in the fold ($80 million to $100 million annually). Competitively, though, it would be a lifeline for the Pac-12’s next-best football brands.
…
“From an expansion standpoint, the answer is … we’re not in the market, but we’re always looking for what makes sense,” Warren told CBS Sports.
…
Industry sources tell CBS Sports that Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington would not bring requisite value as the 16 teams that will make up the league in 2024 with USC and UCLA in the fold. That could lead to the four programs taking substantially less revenue than existing members just to have long-term security in the Big Ten.
The revenue cut taken by Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington in joining the Big Ten — compared to other conference members — would need to be “significant,” industry sources say. That would present a headache to rightsholders trying to restructure a deal already in place.
However, the revenue those four teams could receive would still likely be far higher than the combined value of the 10 remaining Pac-12 schools together. That number is estimated as $21 million to $30 million per school annually.
…
The inclusion of those four programs would trigger “dilution,” an industry term referring to the proportion of attractive games being lessened by the addition of substandard inventory.
The move could also collapse the Pac-12, which is desperately trying to stay together with its 10 existing members. Then the question becomes: Would further Big Ten expansion force the SEC to make a corresponding move? That after Sankey indicated last week his conference was standing down in expansion for the moment.
“I do believe that Greg and I have a heightened responsibility to make sure we’re prudent in our steps,” Warren told CBS Sports. “I always ask myself, ‘Will this decision make sense 50 years from now?'”
…
College athletics sources reached out to CBS Sports concerned with the tenor of Warren’s address Wednesday. They believed, even if Warren was going to be aggressive in further expansion, keeping it to himself instead of sending ripples of worry through college athletics might have been a sounder move.
…
The money issue and upheaval caused by more expansion led one high-profile observer to ask: Would it make more sense for those four to stay out West in a reconstituted Pac-12 than travel athletes across the country in a new league where they would possibly be less competitive?
The Big Ten may be about to answer that question that is more about athletics. What moral obligation would the league have in reorganizing the top end of college athletics? Academically, the four schools fit the Big Ten, but at what cost to the remainder of the Power Five?
…
Sources indicate the Pac-12 would most likely have to reform to stay afloat with invitations to the likes of San Diego State and Fresno State. One label put on that grouping was “Mountain West Plus.”
The Pac-12 could be in danger on two fronts. The Big 12 is also zeroing on westward expansion with Arizona, at least, according to sources. There is no indication if Arizona State would follow, though CBS Sports previously reported that ASU, Colorado and Utah were the Big 12’s targets. San Diego State is in play for both the Pac-12 and Big 12, sources indicate.
LikeLike
From the TV market perspective, it seems the four best additions to the Big Ten (excluding ND) are Washington, Oregon, FSU and Miami. We probably already have at least half of the NoCal market with USC and UCLA plus neither small, private Stanford nor the woke of Cal bring much football fan base to the table.
The collective Nielsen DMAs of Florida that FSU and Miami would bring equates to a lot more new eyeballs to the Big Ten than the SF schools would.
LikeLike
Colin,
I don’t think NoCal counts as in the footprint for TV purposes. The B10 wouldn’t gain many local fans by going there, but they would probably gain “in footprint” BTN subscriptions and ad rates.
The FL pair would bring more total market eyeballs I think, though Tampa and Orlando are far from either school.
LikeLike
50 year buy-in is the answer. It would still be a far better deal for the Pac 4 than remaining where they are.
Also, Colin, the Bay Area schools are definitely worth more than UO.
But FSU+Miami worth most of all to the B10 (out of all the targets remaining). They would not be dilutive.
UNC+UVa+Duke+GTech definitely would be dilutive as well. A 50 year buy-in for them too. The SEC may offer a better deal, but I doubt it. UNC/UVa/NCSU/VTech/Duke are all dilutive to both the B10 and SEC.
LikeLike
Richard: “Also, Colin, the Bay Area schools are definitely worth more than UO.”
That is not a given. As I said before, Oregon + Wash + FSU + Miami is worth a lot more than Oregon + Wash + Stanford + Cal. After you take the USC fans + the UCLA fans out of the SF Bay Area, there is little left.
LikeLike
Please, just stop. On their own merits alone (i.e. – ignoring the virtue of pairing), Washington and Stanford stand heads and shoulders above Oregon and Cal as realignment candidates.
The idea that two L.A. schools bring at least half of the NorCal market is just ignorant. Northern California used to envy SoCal with a passion bordering on hatred. Now, it just looks down its nose at the region. The cultures of the two regions are not similar. The USC alumni network and passion is “the force” in SoCal, but nowhere else. To the extent that one wants to try to “bring/capture” the Bay Area market, a local team is necessary.
Meanwhile, people here have posted numerous times that Oregon is not a valuable catch due to a small market – that, BTW, is even more woke than the Bay Area. Couple that with pathetic academic credentials, that not even Phil Knight bothers to try to improve (he gives his academic money to Stanford), and one could easily argue that the Ducks should be relegated. There are several good reasons why the state of Oregon is grossly inferior to Washington economically, academically, and IMHO culturally.
LikeLike
Redwood: “Please, just stop. On their own merits alone (i.e. – ignoring the virtue of pairing), Washington and Stanford stand heads and shoulders above Oregon and Cal as realignment candidates.”
You are badly confused. Realignment candidates ranked:
23. USC
25. Washington
26. Oregon
27. UCLA
44. Cal
48. Stanford
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
Colin,
That’s 1 person’s rankings based on a formula they created. It’s hardly definitive. Value is in the eye of the beholder. The B10 and SEC would value these schools differently.
Canzano’s source (Bob Thompson from Fox) said the Bay area schools were both a lot more valuable than UW and UO.
Pat Forde’s list put UW and Stanford a little above UO with Cal way behind.
Other people have created other lists. About the only universal thing is that Cal is never the most valuable of the four, though it was tied with Stanford according to Thompson.
LikeLike
“That’s 1 person’s rankings based on a formula they created. It’s hardly definitive. Value is in the eye of the beholder.”
Brian, that isn’t true. That ranking is a compilation of four other rankings, and each of these is based on measured data, not opinion. Stanford does not measure up in any of those four rankings. They are summarized below.
Home Attendance – 20 USC, 22 Wash, 24 UCLA, 34 Oregon, 45 Stanford, 49 Cal
Number of Fans – 17 USC, 25 UCLA, 31 Cal, 42 Wash, 45 Oregon, 69 Stanford
Wall St Jour Team Value – 19 Wash, 21 Oregon, 23 USC, 24 UCLA, 34 Stanford, 40 Cal
Social Media Following – 10 Oregon, 26 Wash, 37 UCLA, 38 USC, 45 Stanford, 65 Cal
LikeLike
Colin,
He made up a formula to determine value, then ranked the schools. He chose 4 available data sets, he chose to weight them equally, and he chose to use ordinal rankings in each data set.
Each of those choices is questionable. Why are those 4 the right metrics, and no others are? Why use those sources? Why weight each metric equally? Why use ordinal rankings vs normalized values (the gap from 1 to 2 may be much larger than from 20 to 21)? Change any of those, and you may get a different result.
I’m not arguing for Redwood’s position by the way. I just don’t think there is a definitive rank order for value, because value is a nebulous term. Do we solely mean financial value to the TV deal? Do we care about fit? Is potential influence on ND’s future decision counted? Impacts on academic prestige? Outreach to B10 alumni?
LikeLike
“He made up a formula to determine value, then ranked the schools. He chose 4 available data sets, he chose to weight them equally, and he chose to use ordinal rankings in each data set.”
Brian, of course that’s what he did. What better method do you suggest? What other data do you propose? Redwood’s analysis consists of “Stanford is a no-brainer. Stanford is a no-brainer.”
I agree that Stanford would be the choice if ND joined and insisted that the Cards be their +1. Lacking that, there is no reason to consider them a better option than the Washington Oregon combo.
LikeLike
Colin,
Brian, of course that’s what he did. What better method do you suggest? What other data do you propose? Redwood’s analysis consists of “Stanford is a no-brainer. Stanford is a no-brainer.”
Better method:
1. Define value, and justify the definition.
2. Determine what data would best indicate value.
3. Determine a formula that combines such data in the correct way to reach the best result.
4. Analyze the data in a sound manner.
Don’t you really want to compare desirability of schools to the B10 for realignment? So you want to rank schools by value to the B10 in expansion.
What does the B10 want from expansion? More TV money? More academic prestige? A more national footprint? Regional partners for USC and UCLA to reduce athletic travel and maintain rivalries? Proximity to existing alumni? Access to a strong region for athletic recruiting? Access to a growing region for future student recruiting? Other?
How does the B10 weight those various things? Does academics trump demographics? Does money trump everything? Etc.
Let’s suppose this has been narrowed to P12 schools only, with ND not a consideration in any way. Is money #1? Let’s say it is.
What data do we need to figure out how much money each school would bring?
1. Direct numbers about financial value would be nice
2. If indirect analysis is required, what proxy data would best work?
Miller chose:
1. Attendance
2. Fan base size
3. Financial valuation
4. Official social media following
3 of the 4 are proxies for how large and fervent the fan base is. But is that how the B10 makes the most money?
What school do we all agree would be #1 on the B10’s list? ND. So if the data is useful, ND should top the list.
Attendance:
ND is #15, just ahead of WI and several spots behind NE. UNC is #41, and RU is #50. We know RU made big money for the B10. This metric seems weakly correlated to value at best. Plus, this data is flawed. It is official attendance, not butts in seats.
Fan base size:
Based on a 2011 online survey and market size data at the time. Some of the trends make sense, but there is no way to validate the numbers. It claims Cal was by far the #3 team in P12 fans behind USC and UCLA. And GT was a close #2 in the ACC, way ahead of FSU and Miami. And Auburn was #1 in the SEC. ND was #4 behind 3 B10 teams.
Financial valuation:
The B10 isn’t buying a team, they’re adding them to a conference. ND is #5, well behind some other kings. Cal is ahead of Miami, which seems questionable. MsSU is way ahead of UNC, and so is ISU. I don’t see this as very useful either.
Official social media following:
He simply looked at how many people followed the official social media sites for each team/AD, by Like-ing the Facebook page or following the Instagram or Twitter feeds. Even he admits this metric has problematic data. ND is #8, but USC is #38. UTN is way ahead of UF and UT, again making me question the rankings.
So 4 types of iffy data. Why weight them equally, when 3 of the 4 are measures of fan base? Why use 3 bad measures of the same thing? Where are TV ratings? Evaluation of TV contracts?
I don’t know the “right” way to weight the different categories, but just saying they’re equal is lazy.
Then we get to data analysis. He used ordinal rankings. Why not normalize the data so that relative values can be used?
Let’s use attendance as an example:
1. 109,574
6. 100,856
10. 90,056
15. 79,526
20. 69,044
26. 60,250
41. 49,651
58. 40,327
It drops by about 10,000 every 5 places through the top 26, but then it takes 15, then 17. Ordinal rankings distort the picture. And these numbers are limited by capacity anyway. Cincinnati could sell more tickets if they had room for a larger stadium, for example. The kings might sell more if they had more space, too. Perhaps they should also be ranked by % of capacity filled.
So that’s my critique of his method.
But for our purposes, we have the estimates from Bob Thompson and others available unlike the author of the piece you linked. He said Stanford and Cal are worth about $45M each to the P12’s TV deal, and UW and UO about $30M each. He may be wrong, but he’s knowledgeable in the field and is giving exactly the type of data you wanted. I would defer to him over a random internet ranking.
As I said, I’m not supporting either side. I don’t know the values of these schools to the B10. One can make a case for any of them. I default to listening to the experts on this, while acknowledging that value to the P12 and value to the B10 could differ in many ways.
LikeLike
A long buy in may handle the financial side, but it doesn’t prevent the product dilution. The B10 has enough bad teams already. And some of the old members would like to actually play each other regularly.
LikeLike
The top teams also would like wins.
Again, sometimes. I think you’re 80.
LikeLike
I wasn’t the one who brought up dilution, it was Dodds’ source. So that’s how those 4 are viewed externally, at least by this person. Adding them would add “substandard inventory.” In other words, they don’t magically gain a lot of value by joining the B10. And I think this is more about brands than Ws, though Cal is certainly bad either way.
If you have issues with it, take it up with Dodds’ source.
LikeLike
Also, UW and UO are so bad at football that OSU and UMich scheduled them as the marquee OOC opponent. “Dilutive” Stanford has made the Rose Bowl more often in the past decade than any B10 team.
And you’re not worth listening to if you think FSU and Miami would dilute the quality of B10 football.
LikeLike
1. I didn’t say anything about dilutive, Dodds’ source did.
2. At no point in this discussion were FSU or Miami mentioned or referred to. The FSU teams of the past couple of years would’ve been dilutive to any P5 conference, but I think we can assume that’s an anomaly.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34297535/big-ten-expand-additions-usc-ucla-says-commissioner-kevin-warren-adds-additional-value-conference
Similar stuff, be he includes this quote from Warren:
“…He also realizes that conference realignment can be costly for other leagues.
“If a conference is allegedly on the brink, there are many more issues than members leaving,” said Warren. “There are deeper issues. I’m not promoting conferences facing a crisis or going out of business, not at all. But I come out of the NFL for 21 years. In the NFL, either you succeed or you fail, and that’s not only on the field. I’m talking about in business, operationally. Either you have your fan base or you don’t.”
Sounds like, “its your problem that predators are able to take USC/UCLA/Texas/OU from you.”
LikeLike
To my knowledge, no conference yet has turned down an acquisition that made financial sense, out of an altruistic desire to see another league survive.
If an acquisition doesn’t make sense, then you can pour out your altruistic heart, because you weren’t taking those schools anyway.
LikeLike
The rationale could be that Warren, et.al, view it to be in the long term interest of the B1G to keep four major “P5” conferences. Ending the PAC might make that impossible.
There has been endless speculation that the B1G and SEC want to be the only conferences to survive, Then the playoffs would be between those two.
What if that is wrong? What if the B1G and/or SEC think that there should be two more leagues surviving? Even though the B1G and SEC would have nearly every top team, that would at least in theory allow almost all current P5 teams to survive, even with far less money.
I continue to believe that any extreme action, such as two 24 teams leagues and no one else, would lead to Congressional intervention of some sort. If twenty teams suddenly lost P5 status, that could result in serious adverse reaction.
Leaving twenty-four or thirty or more teams in weakened P5 leagues, who still have decent TV contracts and a shot at playoffs should remove any pressure of that sort and not hurt the two powerful leagues. Yes instead of a P5, it would be a P 2 and a P 1.5 and the G5 or G4 or whatever.
A few teams would slip totally out of the P5. Maybe Wake, Or State and Wash State and another one or two. Everyone else would find a home, even if the home pays $50 million per year less than the top 2.
LikeLike
It sounds like Stanford/Cal/Washington/Oregon could work if they accept a lesser percentage payout. And I would think they probably would.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/general/video/dennis-dodd-joins-jenny-dell-to-discuss-the-big-ten-leaving-the-door-open-for-more-expansion/
This is a video where Dodd gives his “about a quarter billion” value for the 4 P12 schools (about the 4:00 mark). I haven’t seen it in writing anywhere.
LikeLike
@ Frank – If you created a 2022 edition of the B1G Expansion Index what would it look like? It might be fun to update the index and score USC and UCLA, as well as the PAC and ACC schools that are rumored as possible B1G expansion candidates.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3449702/2022/07/26/new-report-head-impact-cte/
A causal link between repetitive (sub-concussive) head impacts and CTE. This is a problem for soccer, and football.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34276540/2022-college-football-schedule-superlatives-slate-hardest-easiest-everything-between
For something a little lighter, schedule superlatives.
Easiest Power 5 nonconference schedule
In a photo finish, Michigan edges out UCLA in their battle of glorified scrimmages to get ready for conference play. Neither team faces a Power 5 opponent, and all their nonleague games are at home.
…
Cushiest open to the season
Once again, it’s Michigan and UCLA competing for the grand prize. We’ll go with the Bruins this time. The Rose Bowl is going to look mighty empty when Bowling Green, Alabama State and South Alabama come rolling into Pasadena those first three weeks of September. UCLA then opens its conference season on the road against a Colorado team being picked near the bottom of the Pac-12. Bottom line: If Michigan and UCLA aren’t both 4-0 to start the season, there’s going to be some serious splainin’ to do.
…
Going Power-less
Only five Power 5 schools this season will avoid playing a nonconference game against another Power 5 school, Notre Dame or BYU. Three of the culprits are in the Big Ten — Indiana, Maryland and Michigan — although Indiana gets a pass. The Hoosiers play at No. 23 Cincinnati. The Pac-12 makes up the rest of this dubious list. Oregon State and UCLA are also skipping out on playing any Power 5 foes in the nonconference part of their schedules.
You can excuse UMD for a weak schedule, but what is UM’s excuse?
LikeLike
At least Howard isn’t on the Terrapins’ OOC schedule for 2022. Instead, it consists of Buffalo (home), Charlotte (away) and Southern Methodist — yep, the same SMU often discussed as a Pac or Big 12 expansion candidate — (home). Not an overpowering trio, but none of them pushovers.
LikeLike
A couple of years ago, only 3 FBS teams had never scheduled an FCS team, Notre Dame, USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
https://uclabruins.com/news/2021/2/24/ucla-football-sets-future-dates-with-hbcus-alabama-state-north-carolina-central.aspx
UM dropped their series with UCLA, so they had to find replacements on short notice. Martin Jarmond, UCLA’s new AD, wanted to add HBCUs to their schedule. They have AL St this year and NC Central next year.
While HBCUs probably need the money more than other I-AAs, and they certainly could use the exposure, after travel I’m not sure that makes a lot more sense than just getting a CA I-AA like UC-Davis or USD. Let the ACC and SEC play the HBCUs.
OSU playing FAMU was a disaster (76-0, 34 1st downs to 2, 603 yds to 80). It was an embarrassment to watch until our 4th string was playing. And FAMU’s band didn’t even end up coming because of some internal scandal.
UCLA has added home games against Alabama State University and North Carolina Central University to its future football schedule, marking the first time the Bruins will face a historically black college or university (HBCU).
…
“Adding two HBCUs to our football schedule is special,” said the Alice and Nahum Lainer Family Director of Athletics Martin Jarmond. “It’s exciting to give our student-athletes and fans a new experience and to bring a little bit of the South to Southern California.”
…
The 2022 game with Alabama State and 2023 game with North Carolina Central replace the previously-scheduled series with Michigan, who terminated its home-and-home contract with UCLA in 2019.
LikeLike
You can excuse UMD for a weak schedule, but what is UM’s excuse?
It’s embarrassing. They do it again next year (East Carolina, UNLV, Bowling Green). But then, the next 7 years they have Texas×2, Oklahoma×2, Notre Dame×2, and Washington.
LikeLike
This was from cancelling the UCLA series, right? Why did UM do that?
LikeLike
Originally I was all on board a 20 school Big Ten last year with the 4 Cali schools + Oregon/Washington if that’s what it took to get USC/UCLA.
USC/UCLA changed that equation by saying they’ll join as 15-16 without conditions such as adding others.
I don’t see how or why the Big Ten would add Cal at this point. Their football brand is just flat out bad.
Stanford feels like it only makes sense with Notre Dame as a +1.
Oregon has the national brand to likely justify its value to a T1 deal (as well as enough support in and outside Oregon), but the academic situation there is a huge question mark. They’re AAU in name only and likely to not be one eventually.
FSU and Miami are more research intensive institutions (Miami probably close to AAU) and both have selective and more prestigious undergrads that fit better.
Oregon’s advantage is it isn’t in the SEC footprint relative to those 2.
Washington feels like the only one that maybe makes sense right now to me. Largest state other than NC/VA with a large tv market in Seattle, good brand/football quality with fan support. Good academics as well. Checks all the boxes.
It all depends on timing, but I only think Washington/Stanford make sense in the right expansion scenarios.
And even then, there’s a question of money. It’s hard to make expansion work at the $100 million per school payout level.
Requires the right timing with respect to tv deals opening for negotiations and the like.
LikeLike
You’re thinking just in terms of football right now. If you look at this in terms of a 50 year decision, taking all 4 major California schools makes a ton of sense. All four are academic and research powerhouses. All four have extremely successful athletics departments outside of football. California has over 40 million people and a thriving economy. There’s a ton of value there, even if they haven’t been great at football lately. Owning that market and having those schools can only be a good thing. They’re like Rutgers and Maryland but way, way better in just about every way.
Oregon, I agree. It’s very weak academically. Yeah they’ve been pretty good at football lately but that’s about it. I see them as a weaker version of Nebraska.
Washington has a large population, great academics, and solid sports. Seems like a win. I don’t see the problem.
Notre Dame? Who knows. Seems like they don’t want to join. Maybe just give up on them for now.
Stanford + Washington + FSU + Miami if you want to cap it at 20.
Stanford + Cal + Washington + Oregon + FSU + Miami to go to 22. This would be fine in my book.
Stanford + Cal + Washington + Oregon + FSU + Miami + GA Tech + Notre Dame to go to 24
LikeLike
The California analysis which you made is not valid if you view the entire state. USC/UCLA are no longer at issue. The question is what Stanford/Cal bring, not what the entire state brings.
There is no reason to assume that Stanford/Cal add anywhere near the entire state of CA, since USC/UCLA already have brought much, if not most of, CA to the B1G.
If the B1G agreed with you, Stanford/Cal probably would have been included already.
We also have no idea whether USC (or UCLA?) have an opinion regarding adding the other CA schools. USC certainly did not demand that the SF schools be invited.
Obviously ND +1 and that one being Stanford changes everything for Stanford, but does nothing for Cal.
LikeLike
Reportedly Cal is being considered right now. Just because they haven’t been offered yet doesn’t mean they won’t be later.
LikeLike
But nobody has explained what “being considered” entails. That could be people just doing due diligence research and running the numbers. It doesn’t have to mean that the higher ups are actively talking about it. I would expect the B10 and SEC to have “considered” every I-A school in the country (for low levels of considered).
LikeLike
Asking for specific price escalators for school additions sounds like significant consideration.
LikeLike
Brian, you seem so eager to dismiss McMurphy and Dodd’s reporting. Both of these guys are prominent national journalists with excellent track records. I haven’t known them to throw out nonsense. They are both reporting that Cal is among the few schools being seriously looked at for Big Ten membership. Now, maybe they end up getting rejected. That’s possible. But until that happens I don’t think we can be so dismissive of them. They seem to have a shot.
LikeLike
Redwood86, exactly right.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Asking for specific price escalators for school additions sounds like significant consideration.”
It does. And if that was what people were linking to, I’d agree. But I haven’t seen a link to someone reporting that was going on. I saw z33k say that was his understanding of Dodds’ reporting. I’ve seen speculation about it. Is there a quote from Dodds or McMurphy saying that’s what is going on?
LikeLike
Andy,
I’m not dismissing their reporting, I’m dismissing all the speculation surrounding it.
Dodds wrote this:
The Big Ten is evaluating the worthiness of adding Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington from the Pac-12 to expand its conference to at least 20 teams, sources told CBS Sports this week.
While not confirming expansion activities with those specific schools, Warren told CBS Sports the addition of any teams beyond USC and UCLA (joining in 2024) would come after the current media rights deal is finalized in August.
“We’re not ‘targeting,'” said Warren when CBS Sports directly inquired about the candidacy of those four programs. “Like I said, my focus is on taking care of our 14 institutions.”
McMurphy wrote this:
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren told Action Network there are “a handful of schools” besides Notre Dame that would add value as future Big Ten members.
The schools being considered by the Big Ten, sources told Action Network, are Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Miami and Florida State. Warren would not comment on specific schools as potential members.
“When I say add value: value is important, but I just look at the fit,” Warren told Action Network Tuesday at Big Ten Media Days. “A fit has to be there academically, has to be there athletically. All those things are really important. There are a handful of schools that potentially could add value to us, but I’m so focused right now that we welcome USC and UCLA to our conference in 2024 with open arms.”
…
As far as a timetable and number of teams the Big Ten will add, that is unknown.
“It could be two months to two years,” another source said. “There could be an odd number, and there are not any specific number of teams.”
I posted a link previously to where Dodds mentioned the 4 P12 schools and the B10 wanting $250M for adding them, but that’s all he said about it. There was nothing about escalator clauses.
Dodds only mentions the 4 P12 schools, not even ND. And he said the B10 was evaluating their worthiness. McMurphy says the commissioner mentioned that only a few schools would add value, then had other sources that named 7 schools. Did the sources all name all 7? If not, how many were in common on all of their lists? We don’t know, because he didn’t specify.
I see no mention of escalator clauses, leanings of UVA/UNC, or any of the other things people have read into these pieces. That’s the stuff I’m dismissing as speculation for now.
If people are getting that from other other reporting by those 2, then they should link it or quote it.
LikeLike
They’re serious enough about Cal/Stanford/Washington/Oregon to look into how much they would need from the networks to add them. This seems like they’re at the very least having some serious talks about it. Of course it’s possible those talks will go nowhere. But for now at least I think we have to assume that Cal is very much a possibility for the Big Ten.
As for the absence of UNC, you just posted the exact quote. “The schools being considered”, not “Some schools being considered”, but “The schools being considered”. So he’s reporting that right now those are the schools being considered. And UNC is not on the list. Of course, that could always change in the future.
LikeLike
And just to clarify, I don’t consider Dodds saying the B10 would want $250M for the 4 schools the same as the B10 asking for a specific clause. He said that if they added them, then the B10 would come back to the networks and say they wanted the $250M. That’s not the same as saying they were trying to build that $250M value into the TV contracts. To me it sounded like the B10 was trying to find out what those 4 are worth, just like ND saying it wants $75M. If we had the context of when/how it was said and to whom, I might feel differently.
Earlier in the video, Dodds said that the networks don’t know how to value those 4 because they aren’t worth the $80-100M the B10 will be getting. Well, that sounds like they do know how to value them, the value is just lower than the B10 would prefer. It was more than a minute later when he got to the $250M number.
The B10 needs to know that number to decide if they would seriously consider adding those schools. To me it isn’t serious until the COP/C is discussing it. Before that, it’s just vetting them.
I’m sure they’ve asked about ND as well, this time and in previous negotiations. And probably in the past asked about UT and OU. Everyone knew the B10 was considering the other P12 schools at some level.
The fact that Dodds had nothing specific to say about ND, UVA and UNC tells me either those are a little more on the back burner time wise, or he has incomplete information. Them being back burner makes some sense with ND negotiating their own deal at the moment, and the ACC GOR, but him not having all the info would also make sense. Few sources are perfect.
LikeLike
Other reports have valued those four at something like $150 million to the Pac 12. They might be worth somewhat more than that in the Big Ten as they’d be playing better schedules on better networks. Let’s say it goes up to $180 million. Which is of course far less than $250 million. So what if those four agree to significantly less revenue share, just to get out of the paltry payments they make in the Pac 12. Say they agree to a 50% share or something like that. They’d still make significantly more than they did in the Pac 12, and suddenly they’re bringing in more to the Big Ten than they’re taking. I don’t know how likely it is that they agree to that, but if they did, then that could work financially. This might be what they’re looking into.
LikeLike
Andy,
I 100% agree that adding these 4 is possible. Especially with ND likely staying independent, an even number would make sense despite what Warren said (9 game schedule needs an even number of teams). I think 6 more P12 schools would be pushing it, as the 4 corners schools just lag too much in value. And with the ACC unavailable for now, that leaves those 4 as the only realistic options.
I’m not convinced they are worth adding, and it sounds like the networks aren’t either. Asking for “only” $250M for adding them makes it more likely (vs $320-400M full share value), but still a reach. It also depends on the 16 presidents being willing to take a pay cut, or the 4 accepting partial shares. I’ve seen no details about that reported (just fan speculation).
And as for a timetable, Warren only said after the new TV deal is signed. But expanding right after signing a new deal seems odd – you were just talking with these people, why not hammer out the details then? Waiting until the expanded CFP starts in 2026 might make sense, as there would be an influx of money that could smooth the transition.
I’m not saying Dodds and McMurphy are wrong. I’m just saying they didn’t say quite as much as some/many people have read into it.
Yes, he wrote “the schools being considered” but that doesn’t mean that others haven’t already been considered, or that others aren’t about to be considered. It also doesn’t say the only schools being considered, or that all other schools have been eliminated from consideration. And as with all sources, there is no guarantee they have all the info.
LikeLike
Andy,
Yes, Thompson gave the $150M valuation to Canzano. They should be worth a little more in the B10, but most of the reporting on this seems to indicate value is mostly about your brand and markets, not your conference (at least, at the P5 level). USC grew in value because they added king vs king games to the B10 inventory. UW, UO and Stanford would be princes, so a little above B10 average (like IA and WI). That doesn’t boost the inventory value much. And Cal would be below average for that. So your $180M is reasonable, but probably near the ceiling (if his $150M was accurate to start with – a big if).
I mentioned the option of them taking a partial share in another comment. It’s certainly possible as long as it’s temporary. The lower valued B10 schools don’t want to set a precedent of a permanent second class, but a buy-in phase has been done before. The four could agree to equally split whatever the B10 can get from the networks for them, then grow their shares over 6-10 years until they are equal. If the other 16 accept slower slightly growth in their payouts, the money for these 4 could catch up reasonably quickly.
To me, it just sounds like the B10 is at the stage of seeing what the options are so they can present numbers to the COP/C and get guidance on what path they want to follow. That could be expanding again in September, or in 2026, or waiting until the next TV deal. It could be taking 2 or all 4. Or it could be focusing on the east instead. Who knows?
LikeLike
Frank: Which has suffered more online vitriol of late — Cal to the Big Ten, or Mayim Bialik as a permanent “Jeopardy!” host?
LikeLike
I agree with Andy’s analysis.
LikeLike
Brian, you seem so eager to dismiss McMurphy and Dodd’s reporting. Both of these guys are prominent national journalists with excellent track records.
Both of them are wrong more than half the time, and they rely on the same weak unattributed sourcing as most other sports writers. There are far better than the Dude of WV, but still unreliable.
LikeLike
Well, this help clarify the importance of autobids to Kevin Warren:
https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1552427644716781568
LikeLike
Yep. That’s why I thought all those theories about Warren wanting autobids to help the Pac or to preserve the P5 were hilarious. The B10 doesn’t care about the Pac or the rest of the P5. It does care about the Rose Bowl (a little) but it may just make the Rose Bowl as much of a B10 bowl as the Sugar is an SEC bowl.
LikeLike
Of course he was going to “soften” on that. He cares only about the Big Ten, and the Big Ten champ will make the playoff 99% of the time anyway.
LikeLike
A lot of the folks on here who think the B10 is out to help the Pac (someone can say that with a straight face after decapitating that league by taking it’s marquee programs, somehow) or P5 or whatever just aren’t much in touch with reality.
LikeLike
Warren’s stance is what he was told it should be. He works for the presidents. He was told to vote no and he did. The autobids were one of several objections he raised to justify the B10’s stance. He may have suggested this course to the presidents, but they had to sign off on him voting no.
Warren cares about the P12 as a means to the B10’s ends. If the B10 values the Rose Bowl at all, then it has to support the P12 enough to keep the Rose Bowl as valuable as possible. If/when the P12 isn’t important to the Rose Bowl’s value, then the B10 will lose interest. And if the B10 sees value in there being a P5, then they’ll work to preserve it.
If Warren “softens” on autobids, it’s because he has permission to compromise on that to get something more important to the B10 (Rose Bowl consideration? Something else?).
LikeLike
I suspect that USC would be fine with both Stanford and Cal in the BiG where their influence will be quite diluted. They probably have the biggest problem with Oregon.
The obvious reasons for the LA schools to go to BiG alone:
1) Get the best possible deal for themselves
2) Cal and Stanford probably could not be trusted enough to go along with the move
3) Cal and Stanford probably voted against USC a lot in conference meetings, as they have different perspectives than the Condoms.
LikeLike
Is the issue with Oregon about recruiting, or something else? I know the Ducks recruited SoCal a lot (so does everyone, but UO was successful at it.
LikeLike
Recruiting and USC and UCLA don’t see UO as an academic peer. To the CA Pac schools, UO is on the same level academically as Boise St.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA don’t see UO as an academic peer. To the CA Pac schools, UO is on the same level academically as Boise St.
That is complete nonsense. Oregon is a borderline AAU-quality school. Boise State was a junior college until 1965. It is not even the #1 university in Idaho.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with both Richard and Marc. Oregon is definitely much better academically than Boise State, but shockingly below where they should be as a member of the Pac-12 and the flagship of their state. Oregon State garners more academic respect than Oregon. Need I say more?
LikeLike
But…
All the flashy uniform combos. What more could you ask for?
https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2021/07/penny-and-phil-knight-donate-500-million-to-university-of-oregon-research-campus.html
Seriously, Knight has made some huge academic donations to UO. Maybe those will help improve things.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-a-walk-on-story-worth-celebrating
The P12 isn’t happy with Warren (shocking, I know).
Warren spent a good portion of his time touting the Big Ten’s poaching of USC and UCLA. Pac-12 stakeholders weren’t happy about all the horn tooting. Said one conference employee: “The only people happy with the USC/UCLA move are those in the B1G, USC/UCLA and FOX.”
Warren also appeared to take a shot at the Pac-12 when he was asked about expansion and the health of college football.
Said Warren: “If a conference is allegedly on the brink, there are many more issues than members leaving. There are deeper issues. I’m not promoting conferences facing a crisis or going out of business, not at all. But I come out of the NFL for 21 years. In the NFL, either you succeed or you fail, and that’s not only on the field. I’m talking about in business, operationally. Either you have your fan base or you don’t.”
The Pac-12’s biggest problem is its media rights deal. The conference has advantageous geography in the Pacific Time Zone. It has good history, strong brands, and it wants very much to matter. But let’s face it — losing USC and UCLA was a gut punch from Warren’s conference. That blow equated to the loss of 5.2 million television households.
Who else is supposed to be happy about a realignment move than the schools moving, the conference adding them, and the network showing the expanded conference’s games? It’s not like there’s some way the B10 could’ve done this that would’ve left the P12 happy. What did they want the B10 to do? Wait until after the P12’s new TV deal was signed, then screw over that network (if they didn’t have a membership clause to protect themselves) by taking USC and UCLA then? That would devalue the B10’s deal.
LikeLike
Well its not like taking neighbors. The Big 12 teams are coming to grips with losing Texas and OU. And Warren is destabilizing the Pac with his expansion comments, and its probably deliberate. Its clear he doesn’t care about the state of college football as a whole, just his piece of it.
LikeLike
Agreed, but the anger should be for USC and UCLA. And I know the P12 is made at them. But USC had been grumbling for a decade, so this couldn’t be a complete shock.
Public statements on controversial topics do not seem to be his string suit. I don’t know that he’s trying to destabilize the P12. Why bother? He can raid them whenever he wants, so instability doesn’t help him. I think he just doesn’t care about them. If anyone, he would play verbal games with the SEC.
I think his statements show his complete lack of a college athletics background. He’s an NFL guy and sounds like it. He’s well on his way to being our Goodell.
LikeLike
Say whatever, but based on the profile of Warren posted the other day, the guy comes off as a self-absorbed jerk. At the very least, someone needs to send him to the Dale Carnegie school.
LikeLike
He seems like a prototypical NFL businessman and lawyer. His lack of a college sports background comes through when he says certain things, like not feeling bad if other conferences fail.
But honestly, Delany came across as a complete jerk too. So did Slive, and Sankey does as well. It may be part of running a P2 conference, and being forced to try to play nice with conferences that just don’t belong at the same level.
They aren’t at Goodell’s level of jerkiness yet, but they’re in training.
LikeLike
I agree with you on Delaney. Definitely do not agree on Slive. Don’t agree on Sankey, but he hasn’t been around long enough to say definitively.
LikeLike
He always came across as a smarmy southern lawyer to me, but others saw him as Matlock. SEC fans loved him.
He wasn’t a NJ-aggressive type jerk in the way Delany was, though, I agree with that.
Part of it was probably being stuck deep in SEC territory during the height of their run and having to hear him talk about how much better they were than everyone else.
LikeLike
Brian – Mike Slive was a native of Utica New York, undergrad at Dartmouth, law degree from UVA, New Hampshire state judge, and AD at Cornell. Typical smarmy southern lawyer? Carpetbagger, maybe.
BTW, Sankey is also a New York native. Undergrad from SUNY-Cortland and masters from Syracuse.
Now you should watch out for those guys that went to LSU undergrad and Tulane Law…
LikeLike
@Alan
Those are the worst-southern smarm with a Cajun accent! BTW I am tired of pushing Tulane to the Pac to counterbalance Colin M’s incessant BYU to the Pac posts! Could use a little help here in between your feet on the desk time collecting retainers or whatever all you folks on here do for a living.
After Warren finishes emasculating Kliavkoff by adding the Stacalorewas quad pod, (they are similar to Orcas), the Pac will be out of west coast academic snob control. The Pac should add BYU (Colin, don’t pee your pants), SMU, TCU, Tulsa, Tulane and of course Rice, so that Rice can take down another conference! I’m not being paid for this, so that’s the best I got for now.
LikeLike
Alan,
He was running southern conferences since the mid-90s. He spent long enough in the south to develop the speech mannerisms. In this case, I’m referring to phrasing that would read like a compliment (or at least sound pleasant) but is anything but. The lawyerly equivalents to “bless your heart” and “aren’t you precious.”
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/hopes-raised-for-college-football-playoff-expansion-agreement-as-interest-in-16-team-model-grows/
Dodds on CFP expansion, and how 16 is the new hot model (for now, at least).
The sudden interest in 16 might best be explained by, “Why not?” Still, one high-profile industry called the idea “lunacy” saying Sankey’s original subcommittee got it right at 12 teams.
A 12-team bracket is valued at approximately $1.2 billion annually, industry sources told CBS Sports.
Support for the 16-team bracket may have hatched while commissioners were in Park City for the annual Collegiate Commissioners Association meeting. Among those eligible to attend the meeting, only Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick was absent because of a previous commitment.
….
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, one of those expansion architects along with Sankey, explained that up to 30 teams would be in contention up until November if a 12-team bracket needed to be filled out.
Warren and others have already projected that a 16-team bracket would require every program to begin their regular season in the last week of August. Currently, that space is labeled “Week Zero” — openers for a handful of teams before the traditional Labor Day weekend openers.
The 12-game season would then be completed into time for the first round of playoff games to begin likely during the second week of December.
I’ve seen much higher estimates for the value of a 12-team CFP. Navigate said it could earn up to $2B per year ($1.9B just from TV). That’s compared to the roughly $600M ESPN pays now for the 4-team CFP + the rest of the NY6 games.
LikeLike
I don’t think many would complain too much about Week 0 becoming part of the season. It will be pretty hot for a lot of southern and southwestern schools, but the already practice in that weather.
The bigger issue is scheduling the playoff games, especially with the NFL expanding their season and taking some Saturdays. How deep into January will the presidents allow the title game to be? Once you know that, you can make a plan.
Having 8 games that first round will be tough. When do you play to avoid overlap? 3 windows per day is about the limit, unless you want a playoff game at 10:30 ET. Do you play 2 games at once and split the audience? You can’t play Sundays or during weekdays. 1 game Friday night and 3 on Saturday? Or really, 2 games in each window assuming one will be a blowout (1/16 + 5/12, 2/15 + 6/11, etc.)?
Or is it not a straight 16, but a ladder like some MBB tournaments (9-16 play 1st round, winners play 5-8 in 2nd round, those winners play 1-4 in quarterfinals, then semis and the championship)?
I think 12 teams is much easier for scheduling since you only need 4 games in a round (5-8 vs 9-12, winners vs 1-4 in quarterfinals, semis, final).
LikeLike
With most people off work from Thanksgiving through that weekend, scheduling 8 first round games on that weekend makes a lot of sense. Then 4 games on what is now CCG week, NYD bowls for semifinals, etc.
That would keep the backend of the CFB season similar to now, but would mean starting CFB the week before what is now Week Zero (Week -1, anybody?)
Though that would also mean more CFB games that don’t have to compete with the NFL on a weekend. You could play CFB games on both days of the weekend the first 3 weeks of the season (Labor Day too).
Once both the B10 and SEC expand to 20+, those conferences would likely welcome that. A 24 team B10 would have 108 conference games. With a 14 week regular season and 3 Sundays + Labor Day + Black Friday, that’s 18X4=72 time slots. You could have a conference game filling every slot. Also 3 Th and 3 F before Labor Day for plenty of OOC games. Heck, before Labor Day, you could have a B10 OOC game every day of the week.
LikeLike
With most people off work from Thanksgiving through that weekend, scheduling 8 first round games on that weekend makes a lot of sense. Then 4 games on what is now CCG week, NYD bowls for semifinals, etc.
They won’t give up CCG week. That game is a cash bonanza for the SEC and the Big Ten. The article said that the first round would probably be played the second week of December. Timing is probably a Friday night game and three Saturday games. That sets up a second round at the traditional bowls and two more rounds in mid-to-late January. It sounds like CCG week would move to Thanksgiving, which then gives teams an off-week to prepare for their first-round playoff game.
If the first two rounds are in December, it means some teams will have played up to three “post-season” games (counting CCGs) before they even get to a bowl. There is a real issue with fan travel fatigue. Imagine that the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls are hosting semi-finals. Then it means every other major bowl is a losers’ bowl. Hard to get the fans excited for that.
There are probably going to be fewer bowls in this new world; still, they will want to preserve at least the major ones. So, I think they will play the quarter-finals over New Year’s weekend, which means the four top bowls all feature teams with something to play for.
It is not clear what happens to the remaining bowls. Let’s say the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls are quarter-finals. Are first-round losers eligible to play in the Peach and Cotton? In the subcommittee proposal, first-round losers would not play in a bowl. That would mean the Peach and Cotton, formerly top-tier bowls, would be hosting teams rated no higher than 17th. If first-round losers are eligible to play in bowls, you lose at least a week of time for fans to plan travel — and how excited would those fans be, after losing a first-round game?
I think 12 teams is much easier for scheduling since you only need 4 games in a round (5-8 vs 9-12, winners vs 1-4 in quarterfinals, semis, final).
I always thought 12 was just a prelude to 16. When you can play 4 lucrative games on a given weekend, why play only two? They were never going to be able to resist that for very long.
LikeLike
Why would the colleges care about helping the bowls? I suppose there is sentimental value towards the Rose by the B10 and Pac schools (even less of that by the SEC towards the Sugar), but other than that, all playoff games on-campus until the semifinals. And the B10 showed how much they cared about the Rose by adding the LA schools.
That takes care of travel fatigue (yes, I know there are some backwards-looking people who will argue that playing on campus isn’t possible in December even though the B10 did just that during 2020, but they’ve been consistently wrong, so aren’t worth listening to).
BTW, I didn’t advocate giving up the CCG games (which I could frankly do away with personally with super-expanded playoffs) but which yes, are a huge money maker for the P2 leagues. I was using the current designations for those weeks because there’s no better way to refer to them. So if first round playoffs are Thanksgiving week, New CCG week would be the old Rivalry Week (week before Thanksgiving). That’s why I was moving the start of the season up 2 weeks.
LikeLike
Why would the colleges care about helping the bowls?
Simply because the commissioners and university presidents, by their actions and words, continue to suggest that the bowls matter. I am not saying they should—only that they do. Note that the article said the first round would be played in the second week of December, which is not your proposal. When someone in charge comes out with a proposal like yours, you will have my attention.
I know there are some backwards-looking people who will argue that playing on campus isn’t possible in December even though the B10 did just that during 2020, but they’ve been consistently wrong, so aren’t worth listening to.
The Ohio State athletic director was one of those backwards-looking people. The Big Ten did it once in an exceptional year, but that was between fellow Big Ten teams. Much as I would love to see it, I acknowledge there is a fairness issue if Mississippi State has to travel to Madison in mid-December, when some of their players perhaps have never even seen snow, much less played in it.
The B10 showed how much they cared about the Rose by adding the LA schools.
The Rose Bowl long since ceased to be an annual game between the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions. That doesn’t mean the Big Ten no longer cares about the game itself. It remains a ratings powerhouse.
LikeLike
The reason the B1G does not play in winter is that few college stadiums are built to play in freezing conditions (NFL stadiums are). It cost the Vikings $700K to prepare the U. Minnesota stadium for 1 game after the roof of the Metrodome collapsed. Cost $7M to put in a heated field and provide enough heat in restrooms / concession areas to survive a Minneapolis winter. The field will freeze as hard as a rock and lead to injuries if not heated and all the pipes will burst (these are drained after the last game). In addition to the cost there is the comfort factor. The later a game is scheduled the higher the probably that bad weather will turn it into a disaster.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure the B1G doesn’t play in the winter is that the regular season is generally over in late November.
LikeLike
Responding to having 2 playoff games on campus. Even 1 playoff game in mid-December can be iffy in the midwest. The NFL plays outdoors in Buffalo and Chicago in January, but those stadiums are built for that weather where the college stadiums are not.
LikeLike
Marc, it’s different from mine but doesn’t preclude 2 rounds at home sites before the semifinals at NYD bowls.
LikeLike
Marc, it’s different from mine but doesn’t preclude 2 rounds at home sites before the semifinals at NYD bowls.
We shall see. I flat-out Joe-Namath guarantee they will not do that.
LikeLike
Also, Marc, if you actually endorse Gene Smith’s view, then don’t complain about travel fatigue (which I agree is a real issue).
It’s possible that Gene Smith and his brethren value their free junkets and trinkets that the bowls now provide them too much to care about inconvenience for the fans, athletes, and other students who are associated with the football team (band, cheerleaders, assistant trainers, students who travel to see games, etc.), But if you truly did care about the fans and students, you’d only have the semifinals at bowls (called the Rose and Sugar).
LikeLike
Also, Marc, if you actually endorse Gene Smith’s view, then don’t complain about travel fatigue (which I agree is a real issue).
When I quote someone, it does not mean I agree with them. Personally, I think the first round should be on campus. I also recognize that the Big Ten is not taking my views into consideration. You are, of course, free to disagree with Gene Smith, but to call him backward-looking is an unjustified insult.
It’s possible that Gene Smith and his brethren value their free junkets and trinkets that the bowls now provide them too much to care about inconvenience for the fans, athletes, and other students who are associated with the football team….
Many journalists have suggested that those junkets are corrupt and make no sense. I totally respect your right to agree with them. However, none of the comments from ADs, commissioners, and presidents suggest they are heading in that direction.
The fact is that the teams continue to play in bowls enthusiastically. As far as I can tell, the players do not dislike going to bowls; they love it. Many of the fans do too, although of course it depends on the bowl. For a bunch of practical, financial, and logistical reasons, they will want to maximize the value of the major bowls. I guarantee it.
LikeLike
Given the downward slide of B12 and P12, I don’t see how the Rose and Sugar continue with their current tie-ins (which are on the same 12-year cycle as the CFP). Given a 16-team playoff, I don’t see how the major bowls can continue to be the major bowls. Will they now exist to match up the #17 vs. #20? Seems unlikely. Or will the Rose Bowl host the 3rd-place B1G team that lost in the first round of the playoffs? Seems unlikely.
There doesn’t seem to be a spot in the new world for major bowls. Minor bowls will continue to exist for the teams that don’t make the playoffs. Or probably the major bowls become the minor bowls, and the minor bowls disappear.
For all these reasons, I think the Rose and Sugar become permanent semifinals. The best thing for the sport is the semifinals on NYD evening.
The first two rounds as home games. The playoffs will thrive as campus events, they’re lame as destination events.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the major bowls can continue to be the major bowls. Will they now exist to match up the #17 vs. #20?
This is precisely why the major bowls will host quarter-finals, not semis. That gives the student-athletes and fans the experience of a sunny NYD destination. If you can do that for two games, four is even better. There is no reason for the sport to give that up when they don’t have to.
LikeLike
There is no reason for the sport to give that up when they don’t have to.
The reason is that they keep a much larger cut of the playoff gate by hosting at home. Bringing in six total bowls for the playoffs means giving up a lot of money and control.
LikeLike
We shall see. I am as sure as I could ever be that they will not play two rounds on campus.
LikeLike
FCS plays multiple games on campus. And many schools, playing during that time when students aren’t there or are in finals, draw fewer fans than they do during the regular season.
I agree there is no chance of multiple games on campus. There is a lot of money from neutral site games. Otherwise you wouldn’t see those games in Arlington and Atlanta at the start of the season.
LikeLike
greg,
I agree that something probably has to change with the Rose and Sugar bowls. Maybe the Orange as well. Luckily the bowl contracts end just after the realignment actually happens.
LikeLike
Marc,
Agreed, the conferences love their CCG money. Those games are largely pointless for the B10 and SEC in a 12+ team playoff, but they aren’t going away.
You mention 1 F game and 3 Saturday games in a weekend. But you need 8 games in the first round if you go to 16. Do you double up in each window, or find other times to play?
And what happens to the current Week 0 games? Teams playing Hawaii get a 13th game. Do they move to week -1 now?
I think they will stick to CFP or bowls for teams, not both. So the major bowls will get the option to be part of the CFP, or to get 17th and lower. The Rose Bowl needs to be on 1/1 because of the parade. Some of the others are more flexible (Peach has moved around, etc.).
The CFP is clearly not designed for fans or players, just accountants. They will have to depend on locals and corporate ticket sales, plus fans who will pay in advance like for the NCAA tournament.
LikeLike
You mention 1 F game and 3 Saturday games in a weekend. But you need 8 games in the first round if you go to 16. Do you double up in each window, or find other times to play?
Brain freeze on my part. I don’t see how you avoid doubling-up. Maybe you have staggered starts, so that a fan could watch the end of every game. But there is no way to play eight games in a weekend at non-overlapping times, with Sunday off limits.
LikeLike
Marc,
That’s one reason 12 makes more sense to me. You have 2 weekends with 4 games, but never need 8. It seems like those other 4 games would lose a lot of their value if they’re splitting the audience.
LikeLike
“But the game is out there, and it’s either play or be played.”
– Omar Little, The Wire
Kevin Warren announced the B1G isn’t done with expansion, said it will be very particular, and set some criteria. Then according to Brett McMurphy, “sources” let slip that OR, WA, Stanford, and Cal (among some others) are on the short list. Funny how that all came out.
Brilliant, actually. Obvious chatter to be had everywhere. Everyone in Eugene, Seattle, Stanford, and Berkeley just froze their contingency planning, with new hope that a B1G invite is coming.
Is the B1G going to expand further any time soon? Heck no. But will either the PAC or perhaps an expansionist ACC will be able to sign those schools to a GOR anytime soon? Nope. The PAC just had its knees cut off, and the ACC/PAC dalliance is probably dead now.
Excerpting Warren: “If a conference is allegedly on the brink, there are many more issues then members leaving… either you succeed or fail, and that’s not only on the field… Either you have your fan base or you don’t.” Wow… how about twisting the knife a little deeper on that Alliance?
Play or be played.
LikeLike
I notice that a lot of folks on here are backwards-looking (1 frequent poster looks backwards pretty much 100% of the time and doesn’t want to ever update his worldview), but you have to deal with the world as it is, not the world as you may want it to be.
LikeLike
…the ACC/PAC dalliance is probably dead now.
I thought it was never going to happen anyway. It never made any sense. To quote our friend bullet, when you add apples and oranges, you don’t get diamonds.
LikeLike
If Mr. Warren floated (or authorized someone else to float) the idea that the B1G was trying to quantify the value of adding 4 PAC schools and/or FSU/MIA, then I’ve underestimated him. Giving those schools any B1G hope is a great idea and virtually guarantees that none will join the B12 or sign a lengthy GOR. It costs the B1G nothing, doesn’t impact the current TV negotiations, and may even help the CAL/UCLA political situations. Why throw a political fit and risk the invite, if the B1G might add you anyway? Why let the SEC have FL without at least floating the idea that FSU and/or MIA might be future additions? This could all be internet speculation that seems to help the B1G if true, but if any of it was intentional – kudos Warren.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff kept talking about his Pac-12 teams being willing to drop their 9th game and play 2 alliance games asap.
Not a peep from the other conferences.
Reality is it was never worth it to the Big Ten.
I made this point repeatedly over the past year that there is negative value to the Big Ten in replacing a Big Ten game with an alliance game.
Even the ACC has 5 ND games and 3 SEC teams (esp UF and UGA) on the annual schedule. For them the scheduling part was also somewhat questionable.
Realignment was and remains the only way to handle this.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff kept talking about his Pac-12 teams being willing to drop their 9th game and play 2 alliance games asap.
Most Pac-12 teams play a P5 or equivalent non-conference opponent every year. Substituting an ACC team makes their inventory different, but not more valuable. However, it makes the travel worse, as the Pac-12 does not play a lot of non-conference games on the Eastern Seabord, for obvious reasons.
I do not fault Kliavkoff for throwing out ideas to see what sticks, but this does not sound like a game-changer to me.
LikeLike
z33k,
The Alliance scheduling concept never made sense for any of them. It made sense for stopping a bad CFP expansion, and that was about it.
LikeLike
This Pat Forde article on Kevin Warren was mildly interesting, but I did chuckle at how Warren characterized his relationship with the other P5 commissioners. He spoke glowingly of the two non-Alliance commishes, and was very dismissive of his Alliance partners:
Speaking of relationships: How would Warren assess his current status with his fellow Power 5 commissioners? He spoke respectfully of counterpart and rival Greg Sankey of the SEC, jokingly referring to him as “G-Sank” and saying they share a lot of the same traits.
“Greg and I are more alike than we are not alike, which I respect,” Warren said. “He doesn’t think like a long-term college administrator. … He’s not scared. He does not care what people think about him.”
On new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark: “I really like him. I’m looking forward to working with him. He’s a marketing wizard, a smart guy.”
On Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner Jim Phillips: “I saw Jim for a minute in Selma [where the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 took athletes on a civil rights history tour earlier this month, as part of the ill-fated 2021 alliance between the three conferences].”
On Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, the freshly aggrieved party in the Big Ten expansion power play: “I think my office is working on me talking to him after media days.”
https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/26/kevin-warren-big-ten-commissioner-future
LikeLike
He and Sankey know each other from long ago, both working under Slive, so it’s not a shock they have things in common. Warren likes other ruthless business people, not people who care about colleges and students, so he’ll never do well with Jim Phillips. He might have been fine with Kliavkoff, but I don’t think Kliavkoff will forgive or forget about USC and UCLA. That bridge is burned, though I’m sure they’ll stay professional.
LikeLike
I wonder how academically snobbish the Big Ten presidents will be? When they admitted Nebraska, the school was already on an AAU watch list for potential demotion. They had to know that UNL might not be in the group for much longer.
There is not much substantive difference between admitting a soon-to-be-demoted school (Nebraska), a recently demoted school (Oregon, if that happens), or an up-and-coming likely future member (Miami).
I see a lot of posts here that suggest non-AAU schools are terrible. Dartmouth, an Ivy League school, was not a member until 2019. Every AAU school is obviously great, but their membership criteria are eccentric and have been much criticized. Excellent universities that don’t happen to have a medical school are at a disadvantage. Medical research is great, but it is not the only thing that matters in the world.
LikeLike
They would prefer academic peers.
But in this new world, money (including future money, so demographic growth meaning more OOS students) trumps all.
UNL brought strengths (the football, the traveling fans). FSU and Miami would definitely bring many strengths. UO brings the least strengths.
LikeLike
The issue though is that by virtually any lens (outside of historical AAU membership), Oregon is probably seen well below Nebraska.
Virtually all prestige rankings show that.
Research $ numbers show that.
How much does it matter?
AAU is just a label, most AAU universities are giant research institutions. A handful are not.
Most of them are prestigious universities.
A lot of prestigious universities (especially selective undergrads) are not in the AAU.
Ultimately, what matters.
If academic prestige and research spending do matter in the sense of being a Big Ten University then it’s hard to justify Oregon.
They do half the research of Nebraska and most prestige rankings have them well below.
Miami does well by most prestige rankings systems and is on the border of being an AAU member.
FSU is probably a bit better than Nebraska in those 2 areas.
How much does all this matter? Who knows.
Oregon would probably be the odd man out of the Big Ten by most metrics.
LikeLike
The other problem with Oregon is that they are historically a middling Pac-12 team (just two all-time Rose Bowl appearances before Chip Kelly). A lot of their success coincides with Phil Nike’s huge investments, but he is not a youngster. That gravy train could be nearing its end. If they return to their historical level of performance, are they still worth it? Probably not.
LikeLike
I’m guessing they have a rather large gift coming after he passes away (Stanford too, but more on the academic side).
LikeLike
Marc: “Every AAU school is obviously great, but their membership criteria are eccentric and have been much criticized. Excellent universities that don’t happen to have a medical school are at a disadvantage.”
The AAU’s most absurd metric, or lack thereof, is that they “don’t count” agricultural research.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. However, my sister in law does research at CalTech. She said that the reason the AAU discounts agricultural research dollars is that the government gives them out solely by a formula.
As opposed to medical/STEM research, which is applied for, and rewards schools for hiring/retaining top faculty and investing in labs.
In theory, I think you could lose your top three Ag researchers, and you Ag research funds dont dry up. If you lose your top physicist, the funds will probably follow that Dr. Where they go.
LikeLike
Nick,
https://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-4/grabbag/2006-4-13.htm
Yes, some ag funding is by formula. But that % has been dropping, with more and more competitive grants being funded.
Formula funds are what drive land grant schools, and they support both research and extension programs. Unlike other research, ag research has to be done everywhere. The soil and climate (let alone weather) vary way too much to let a few schools dominate the research. Different places have different crops and plants and pests. And much ag research requires long term projects to see the effects over years or even decades. That’s why they use formulas rather than competition. You can’t have states that don’t get local ag research done.
I can understand the AAU ignoring ag research since only land grant schools get the formula funds. The real problem is that the AAU does count the ag faculty against the school’s total, so they basically add a whole bunch of faculty that they credit with $0 in research. This greatly skews the normalized metrics which the AAU uses to evaluate schools. If you won’t count their research, then you shouldn’t also penalize the school for employing them. People need to eat and grow forests.
This double whammy is one reason NE was kicked out of the AAU.
LikeLike
I appreciate the education! And I totally agree. There is certainly an element of academic snobbery when it comes to the (highly necessary) funding of agricultural research.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think part of it is that there were stories that the Delany was told not to come back to the COP/C with another school of NE’s caliber (or worse). Were those rumors, or reporting based on “sources,” or both? I don’t recall. But it may have shaped perception.
Since the B10 had the votes to keep NE in the AAU, clearly they keep things compartmentalized. You’d think they’d prefer a school trending up to one trending down, but they also know that not all metrics are key. As you point out, they don’t need to ignore the value of ag research, or punish a school for not being the med school in their state.
LikeLike
Great comments regarding the possible strategy of Warren’s publicly ruminating about more expansion. Prevent the Pac-12 from locking themselves together for any length of time.
Still, it seems like gradualism will continue to win the day. If the BiG expands again any time soon, and Notre Dame is not involved, then it makes sense for the conference to be cautious and only invite the next two most valuable Pac-12 schools. That would be Washington and Stanford. The value gap to be bridged would be less of a hurdle. Stanford sports are used to getting by on less and the school has the internal means to bridge gaps with brethren if it so chooses. Meanwhile, Washington has definite upside potential via population growth & increasing academic prestige.
LikeLike
About the new playoff structure:
The SEC and B10 care about their CCGs, but they don’t really care about the other leagues. This will be even more true when they are 2 mega-leagues.
So they may want to preserve the value of their CCG, but don’t care about the other conferences.
So when the B10 and SEC set up a playoff, what they could do is set up a 10-team playoff (or really a 12-team playoff) where the winner of the SEC and B10 CCGs enter the semifinals (so the SEC and B10 CCGs are essentially quarterfinals). Other 8 best teams play 2 rounds to get to become the other 2 semifinalists.
Semifinals are NYD bowls.
LikeLike
I have been kicking around something similar in a 16 team playoff. A four team Big Ten playoff* with the championship game at the Rose Bowl NYD. Winner to the CFB “final four.” If the SEC does something similar with the Sugar Bowl, then a 16 team play off would be half Big Ten and SEC. The remaining eight conferences (and ND) could then figure out how they want to distribute the other eight slots.
*If the schedule is playing the 16 games after CCG weekend, then have eight Big Ten teams play on CCG weekend in playoff qualifiers.
LikeLike
In this proposal, the Big Ten and the SEC could have no more than one team apiece in the final four. No way Greg Sankey is signing up for that. He just had two of his teams in the championship game.
LikeLike
Correct. It was the one (big) downside it, and why I’ve just been kicking it around. I suppose the SEC could allow their four teams to be intermixed with the other twelve if they wanted. Perhaps only ever having one Big Ten team in the “final four” is the price the Big Ten pays for “protecting” the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
What I think Greg Sankey wants is “best 16.” If eight of them turn out to be SEC schools, then so be it. He is happy to have them fairly seeded along with the other eight. Nothing would please him more than an all-SEC final four. I suspect that would rarely happen, but he does not want to permanently preclude it.
I suspect what Warren wants is that the top-seeded Big Ten team surviving the round of 16 would play in the Rose Bowl. He doesn’t care what conference the opponent comes from.
LikeLike
What I think Greg Sankey wants is “best 16.” If eight of them turn out to be SEC schools, then so be it. He is happy to have them fairly seeded along with the other eight. Nothing would please him more than an all-SEC final four. I suspect that would rarely happen, but he does not want to permanently preclude it.
Sure, but he’ll have to compromise somewhere.
I suspect what Warren wants is that the top-seeded Big Ten team surviving the round of 16 would play in the Rose Bowl. He doesn’t care what conference the opponent comes from.
In a 16 team tournament, there is no guarantee that there will be a Big Ten team available. If the Big Ten truly cares about the Rose Bowl and making sure its a big game, then this is one way to ensure its always a Big Ten matchup. I do think the opponent matters. An Ohio St. vs Pitt/UTSA/No Ill/Utah St (all 2021 conference champs) isn’t exactly what the Rose bowl signed up for.
LikeLike
…he’ll have to compromise somewhere.
Sure, but a compromise that’s worse than he has now? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Sure, but a compromise that’s worse than he has now? I don’t think so.
Is it? Last year he agreed to limit the at large teams to 6. IMO – the planets would have to align perfectly for them to get more than three total teams in. Once OU and Texas join and they go to nine games there is going to be a lot of two and three loss teams that will be hoping the “eye test” of the committee gets them in over 1 or 2 loss PAC/Big 12/ACC teams. Why not cement your advantage as a reward for playing all of these great games and not risk the committee deciding your three loss team isn’t as good as someone else’s two loss team.
LikeLike
Mike,
Why would the SEC agree to those restrictions? Wouldn’t they want to also be eligible for the other 8 spots? They are all about the highest ranked get in no matter what.
Why would the other conferences gift the B10 and SEC 4 spots each every year? Make them earn it. I could see giving them preference for being in the Rose and Sugar bowls respectively if they get that far, but not 4 autobids.
LikeLike
Why would the SEC agree to those restrictions?
So they could keep 1/4 of the CFP money and have effectively 4 playoff teams every year. If they did want to play payoff qualifiers on CCG weekend then they could have four “playoff” games that they could keep the money to as well.
Wouldn’t they want to also be eligible for the other 8 spots?
How the other 8 spots are allocated I didn’t specify. They could, in theory, be eligible for those as well. It would depend on how the other 8 spots are allocated. How many times is the fifth best SEC team (last year was #21 Arkansas if you include OU as an SEC team) going to make a 16 team field, especially if there is any form of conference champion qualifiers?
They are all about the highest ranked get in no matter what.
That is true. They might be the only ones and will probably have to compromise at some point. Exactly like they did for the 12 team.
Why would the other conferences gift the B10 and SEC 4 spots each every year? Make them earn it.
Its the price they’ll pay to limit the Big Ten and SEC to only half the field (and money) and 2/4 final four spots. Its a much better deal than what they have now. College Football has never been about fair access. I don’t think they’ll start now.
LikeLike
So they could keep 1/4 of the CFP money and have effectively 4 playoff teams every year.
Playoff money will increase in later rounds. Locking in four teams to the less lucrative early rounds, at the expense of never having two in the final four, is a bad trade for him.
LikeLike
Mike,
You said the other 8 conferences and ND could decide how to distribute the rest. That in no way guarantees the SEC they’d have a chance at them. The SEC is convinced they’d have more than 4 worthy teams in some/most/every year, so they’d want assurances they could get at-larges as well.
I agree it won’t be fair, but I don’t see either side liking this particular set of compromises.
LikeLike
Playoff money will increase in later rounds.
It doesn’t have to. IIRC you don’t get NCAAT units for playing in the final four.
LikeLike
It doesn’t have to. IIRC you don’t get NCAAT units for playing in the final four.
I don’t have any recollection about how NCAAT money is allocated, but this tournament doesn’t exist yet, and I don’t envision the SEC freezing themselves out of 3/4ths of the most desirable berths. If it were soccer, you would call it an own goal.
LikeLike
You said the other 8 conferences and ND could decide how to distribute the rest. That in no way guarantees the SEC they’d have a chance at them.
Brian –
I did. The remaining eight may decide on 8 conference champions or straight at large seeding or some combo of both (i.e. top four conference champs, top four otherwise). Alternatively, the Big Ten/SEC may just decide its their 16 team playoff and only allow the top 8 teams remaining get in. It would then leave the door open for fifth and sixth team. That might happen if the Big Ten and SEC play 8 team playoff qualifiers on CCG weekend, you don’t want an upset leaving one team out.
I mentioned before that I was just kicking this around in my head. I was wondering how to keep the Big Ten ties to the Rose Bowl and how to keep its importance. Thanks to you and Mark for workshopping this idea.
LikeLike
If it were soccer, you would call it an own goal.
Since you mentioned soccer, this is roughly how the Champions league and World Cup are structured.
LikeLike
Since you mentioned soccer, this is roughly how the Champions league and World Cup are structured.
Sports sometimes have dumb traditions that die hard. If you were starting CFB from scratch, you would never say: “Here’s a great idea: we will make sure the best teams never play each other, and then take an opinion poll to decide who was the best.” And yet, that is how CFB decided its champion for many years.
LikeLike
Since you mentioned soccer, this is roughly how the Champions league and World Cup are structured.
In the interests of clarity, I was referring to there are X teams from this league/continental body selected for each tournament.
LikeLike
You get a unit for each game you play in the tournament except the title game. So the normal max is 5 units, but you can earn 6 if you play in the first 4 and the final 4 like UCLA did in 2021.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl will still be an important piece of the future.
Warren (and the Big Ten) understand how important the game is in terms of its brand/timeslot/history/ratings.
You never give up an advantage like that.
The Rose Bowl will evolve along with the times and adapt to the playoff/conference expansion, but again you never give up one of the most valuable brands in football.
Rose Bowl is 2nd only to the Super Bowl in brand value among football games.
Warren acknowledged that in his interview with SI, even saying he’d sign a 100 year contract with the Rose Bowl.
Either way, it’s good to hear that.
Ohio State-Utah ratings nearly matched the 2 CFP games. Speaks to the enormous value of that game and its timeslot on the calendar.
LikeLike
Wilner’s latest:
Without Notre Dame as the 17th team, the Big Ten’s strategic calculation changes, and a second wave of realignment becomes less likely (although certainly not implausible).
A single Pac-12 school, or a combination of Pac-12 schools, seemingly packs more value to the Big Ten when combined with the mighty Irish to form an 18- or 20-team super-duper conference.
Without the Irish, no combination of Pac-12 schools creates an equivalent financial windfall for the existing Big Ten members, who are likely to collect more than $75 million annually in total media rights distributions.
As we see it, if NBC and Notre Dame tie the knot for another contract cycle …
The Big Ten stands on 16, prompting the SEC to do the same …
The sport enters the era of an expanded playoff with two 16-team behemoths at the controls, just as their media partners, Fox and ESPN, prefer …
The ACC remains locked into its grant-of-rights contract into the next decade …
LikeLike
Per Coach Ryan Day, it will take $13 million in NIL to keep his Ohio State roster together. James Franklin, PSU, agrees with that number.
Jim Harbaugh says Michigan could have even more NIL money. Most other B1G coaches seem bemused.
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/ryan-day-ohio-state-buckeyes-college-football-nil-13-million-jim-harbaugh/
By the way, the number one player from NJ did sign with Texas A&M for NIL money. I have followed signings of NJ top players for a while and I am pretty sure this is the first one ever to TAMU. What a coincidence.
Top NJ players generally have gone out of state to Michigan, PSU, ND, Wisconsin, on occasion to BC and rarely Syracuse. Some have gone to Colorado, Miami, WVirginia, Oklahoma, and a few other places, but never to the State of Texas. This year the top player is going to TAMU and the second ranked to UT.
Both of those two play in a Catholic league in NE Jersey, that churns out lots of big time football players. Both, particularly the number one ranked player, have former teammates and friends at RU. The number 1 had been a heavy RU lean for a year, but money talks.
In the not so distant pass Rashan Gary and Jabrill Peppers were top B1G recruits and went to Michigan, both from the Catholic league discussed above. Gary was the number one ranked HS player in the country in 2015 and Peppers was the number 3 ranked player in 2014.
LikeLike
Jimbo Fisher hired Elijah Robinson in 2018 as Defensive Tackles coach. He is a native of New Jersey, Penn Sate alumni, and is widely regarded as an up-and-comer in coaching circles. Penn State tried to hire him away a few years back, but A&M was able to keep him. I believe he was specifically mentioned by a high school football coach from the northeast in one of those “recruiting confidential” pieces that the Athletic does (I don’t remember which state profile it was) as an out-of-state recruiters who does a particularly good job.
Ever since he joined the staff, A&M has gotten at least one top recruit a year from the region, where Robinson is obviously the lead recruiter:
2019 – 1 from Pennsylvania
2020 – 2 from New Jersey, 1 from Maryland
2021 – 2 from Philadelphia, 1 from Brooklyn
2022 – 1 from Philadelphia
LikeLike
According to 247sports.com, TAMU did not recruit a single player from NJ top 50 in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021 or 2022. They did get two in 2020. I did not go back prior to 2017.
There is zero reason to believe that the kid this year was recruited by anything other than dollar signs. TAMU was never even mentioned as a possible school until recently. The kid has close ties with coaches and players at RU.
I believe Nick Saban’s accusations against Jimbo Fisher. TAMU is not the only school doing this, but it is odd that their recruiting has really picked up since NIL.
LikeLike
“There is zero reason to believe that the kid this year was recruited by anything other than dollar signs”
I just pointed out that A&M has a history of getting at least one elite recruit from the region every year. If you take off your tin foil hat, you’ll see that this commitment just continues a trend.
LikeLike
m,
To be fair, much of the country thinks TAMU is buying their recruits with NIL money – but they don’t believe TAMU is breaking any rules to do it.
Some like it because it annoys Saban (whose boosters bought his players the old fashioned way for years – with bags of cash under the table), some don’t care at all, and some hate the abuse of NIL beyond what it was intended to be.
I have no opinion on the recruitment of this player, but it isn’t crazy for someone to be accusing TAMU of this. Saban did the same thing at a press conference.
LikeLike
” Saban did the same thing at a press conference”
No,, Saban was speaking at a booster event trying to extract money from Alabama boosters. If you watch the video, It was towards the end, and he clearly hadn’t planned to say it beforehand. He just wanted to try to inspire people to pay more…and since A&M was the team that beat them in the regular season, that was the university he knew would get their attention.
While normally everything Saban says is very calculated, it certainly looks like “old man forgets internet exists, thinks he can say anything to local boosters and it won’t get out” like it’s still the year 2000.
LikeLike
I’ve always been in favor of keeping the playoffs at 4 teams (or even going back to 2), but it’s inevitable we’ll expand. Of course, the idea of the Big Ten and SEC having their own playoffs and then having their champions play in a bowl game makes more sense now than ever.
I know this probably won’t be proposed, but I think everyone would be better off acknowledging that the Big Ten and SEC have the most desirable teams and agreeing to locking in (but also limiting) the slots those teams have, then designing the Championship Tournament so that 2 teams from the same conference couldn’t play each other until the semifinals. Without that, it will be possible for Ohio State to play Michigan 3 straight games: in the last week of the season, then in the Conference championship game, then in their 1st playoff game (perhaps after a bye). Keeping conference rematches from happening until later in the tournament (when viewers will feel the rematches have been “earned”) will make for better TV.
I also propose having a 2nd postseason tournament (the “Silver Tournament”) getting more TV money and a bit more representation, taking up more of the traditional bowl season space. Traditional bowls could still be held (and the conferences might agree that teams losing in the 1st week of these tournaments be eligible for bowls), but the 2 tournaments would take a lot of the media attention.
For the 12-team Championship Tournament, I would pick the top 4 SEC teams (SEC #1,2,3,4), the top 4 Big Ten teams (BTen #1,2,3,4), and the top 4 teams not in those 2 conference (Other #1,2,3,4) with the requirement that the top 2 conference champions not in the SEC or Big Ten be included in the “others”. More controversially, I would give byes to the 4 participants in the SEC and Big Ten championship games (SEC #1 & 2 and BTen #1 & 2).
—
The first week of the Championship tournament would then be played on campuses (where possible) the week after the conference championship games (1 on Friday night, 3 on Saturday):
a. Other #3 or 4 @ SEC #3
b. BTen #4 @ Other #1 or 2
c. SEC#4 @ Other #1 or 2
d. Other #3 or 4 @BTen #3
—
The 2nd round would be at bowl game sites.
If all 4 “other” schools get eliminated in the 1st round, these bowls are BTen #1 vs. SEC #4; BTen #2 vs. SEC #3; BTen #3 vs. SEC #2; BTen #4 vs. SEC #1.
If at least 1 “other” school makes it past the 1st round, we will try to give them a slightly easier path to get to the semifinals, with the games being:
e. BTen #2 v. SEC #2
f. BTen #1 v. SEC #3; else SEC #4; else the winner of game a
g. SEC #1 v. BTen #3; else BTen #4; else the winner of game d
h. The other 2 teams left
*exception: if game h would have 2 teams from the same conference, the lower ranked team switches places with the lower ranked team in game e.
—
Round 3 is the Semifinals; the first time that teams from the same conference could meet:
-If 4 teams from same conference left: 1v4 & 2v3
-If 3 teams from same conference left:
The highest & lowest ranked team from that conference play in one game.
-If 2 teams from same conference left:
The highest ranked team from that conference plays the lower ranked of the other 2 schools.
-If 4 teams from 4 different conferences left: 1v4 and 2v3.
—
Round 4 is the championship game
—
Again, I don’t expect this to be approved, but I think this format would be the most TV-friendly in terms of matchups and, therefore, get the most money. I also think many years one or both of the SEC and Big Ten would have more than 4 of the top 12 teams, making it a fair division of the slots.
LikeLike
My proposal for the “Silver Tournament”:
-6 more SEC teams are selected (SEC #5,6,7,8,9,10)
-6 more BTen teams are selected (BTen #5,6,7,8,9,10)
-4 non SEC/BTen teams are selected (Other #5,6,7,8)
Between the Championship and the Silver Tournaments, the “other” category must include at least 4 different conference champions. So if the Championship Tournament only included 2 non-SEC/non-Big Ten conference champions, 2 of the 4 “other” spots in the Silver Tournament must be conference champions.
Rather than try and juggle matchups in this tournament, I would just do a bracket:
Round 1 (played at home fields if possible):
BTen #10 @ SEC #5
Other #7 or 8 @ BTen #7
SEC #9 @ Other #5 or 6
SEC #8 @ BTen #6
SEC #10 @ Big Ten #5
Other #7 or 8 @ SEC #7
BTen #9 @ Other #5 or 6
BTen #8 @ SEC #6
Then:
Round 2 (@ bowl games) Round 3 (semifinals) Round 4 championship
I would play round 1 of the Silver tournament the week following the 1st week of the Championship Tournament: 2 games each on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Unfortunately this limits attendance, but it should get good ratings (Thursday night college football will probably do better now that the NFL games that night are Amazon exclusives). Note that playing the following Saturday would go up against a full slate of NFL games. The other option would be playing the first week of this tournament at the same time as the Championship tournament.
Scheduling the other rounds would be coordinated with the Championship Tournament; the second round of the 2 tournaments would occupy 8 traditional timeslots around New Years. The semifinals of the 2 tournaments could either be the same week (giving the 2 tournaments a total of 4 games in 4 nights) or be spaced so that the semifinals for the Silver Tournament would be the week before the semifinals of the Championship Tournament. Their finals could be on back-to-back nights.
Bowl games are good business for ESPN. After the first round, this “silver tournament” will probably get better ratings than all but the best bowls now get, even if those ratings will be less than what the Championship Tournament gets. That’s more money for all the conferences.
The 2 tournaments together will give December and January a “March Madness” type feel for football.
LikeLike
The best CFP is 0 teams – the old bowl system.
Beyond that, fewer is better. A 2-team plus one would work.
I do think there should be a second playoff. It should be for the G5 and non-ND independents. Eight teams including the champs that didn’t make the CFP and the rest at-large. Teams are chosen based on computer rankings, not a ridiculous committee. First round on campus, second round in early bowl games. Championship in a near-NYD.
LikeLike
I love the idea of a G5 plus non-ND independents playoff. The G5 are obsessed with getting into the big boy playoff that they can’t win. This is one that they can.
LikeLike
Exactly. It would be fun to watch, with many schools having a chance. And it’s a national title they can truly aspire to, unlike the CFP title. The best part is that if they have a magical year, they can still make the CFP and play for the top title. The money would be less, but I think it might actually pull decent ratings if it’s aired at the right time (certainly better than some of their bowls). And the big boys can still share a little of the CFP money to keep them happy (better that than an autobid for the G5, right?).
LikeLike
1970 was the best year for football champions. We had three: Ohio State, Nebraska, and Texas. It doesn’t get any better than that.
LikeLike
1960 had five: Minnesota, Washington, Ole Miss, Missouri, and Iowa.
Missouri is the only one not claiming their unclaimed title. The other 4 do. Even though Missouri had the best record of the five and won the Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
Sounds like Missouri isn’t a very good fit for the SEC!
its pretty rare for there to be a year when either Alabama or Tennessee doesn’t claim a title.
LikeLike
Exactly, MO should be claiming 1960 and 2 other years chosen at random.
LikeLike
A&M may be abusing the system, but it could be worse. Based on Michigan’s recruiting class, Harbaugh appears to think handing out Zingerman Reuben’s on visitation day is an adequate substitute for NIL. He did best OSU, but the aura of the Stanford Harbaugh (and his ability to land top recruits) appears to be waning.
LikeLike
(reubens —and yummy ones at that!)
LikeLike
I do not even think that TAMU is abusing the system. There really is no system, other than do whatever the boosters will want and will fund.
LikeLike
That is correct.
LikeLike
Regarding potential playoffs, I’d like to see this scenario.
A 12 team playoff as recommended by the committee subject to a couple of tweaks.
1. 1st round at home of the higher ranked team two weeks after the CCGs. (1 Friday game & Sat tripleheader)
2. Quarterfinals in pre-determined regional sites like Atlanta or Miami, Dallas, Indianapolis or Detroit, and Phoenix one week later. (1 Friday game & Sat tripleheader)
3. Semis at the Rose & Sugar on NYD.
4. Final at site TBD on MLK day.
That’s 12 regular season games followed by a CCG, open date, 3 weekends of playoffs, 2+ weeks to rest up for the championship.
No conflicts with NFL playoffs but would have to do a workaround on Saturday regular season games in December. I’m guessing the NFL would cooperate.
LikeLike
The CFP committee is the worst thing in all of sports. Kill it with fire. The “eye test” is a stupid way to decide a championship. Use a BCS-style system that’s at least partially objective, plus the voters already do it for free – no need to travel to Dallas to overrate every SEC team and give contradicting answers to why teams rank where they do.
LikeLike
I got that wrong in the last playoff cycle. I never thought they’d delegate the decision to a Committee’s eye test, when so many members of the Committee have clear conflicts of interest (or could be perceived as having them).
But they did indeed create the Committee, and I don’t hear any of the sport’s overseers proposing to get rid of it. A 16-team playoff will give it more work to do. There will probably be a rule prohibiting (or at least disfavoring) re-matches in the first round. That means humans might have to re-jigger the standings.
LikeLike
I really expected the committee to be better than the BCS. Instead, they tend to get dominated by a few individuals (Barry Alvarez) and weigh the eye test too much and are even worse than the polls with recency bias.
LikeLike
Agree with you on this Brian. It makes college football look like professional wrestling.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2022/07/wilner-hotline-the-pac-12s-survival-depends-on-the-big-ten-not-the-big-12-tracing-the-path-to-stability/
Wilner’s latest piece, full of informed speculation as he calls it.
But for all the smoke billowing from Indianapolis, the Hotline does not believe the situation has materially changed.
Despite Warren’s declaration and the subsequent media reports that named names, the Big Ten isn’t any closer to poaching additional Pac-12 schools than it was a week ago.
Instead, the next step in this drama hinges on Notre Dame. And NBC.
…
The most significant news of the week came not from Warren but from Mark Silverman, the president of Fox Sports.
…
On Wednesday, Silverman told The Athletic that the Big Ten’s media rights negotiations would be completed in “the next few weeks” and likely by Labor Day.
There is no indication additional schools will be invited at this late stage, thereby leaving Oregon, Washington and Stanford with limited short-term options and giving the Pac-12 a chance for survival.
(A point we have mentioned previously that’s worth repeating: USC does not want Oregon — or Washington, for that matter — in the Big Ten. The Trojans deftly undercut Oregon’s recruiting efforts and competitive prospects by leaving the Ducks behind in a depleted conference. Why toss them a lifeline to the gilded stage?)
Additionally, fans should pay particular attention to which media companies partner with the Big Ten for the contract currently being negotiated.
The Pac-12 is rooting for ESPN to take a small stake in the Big Ten’s inventory — even better: no stake whatsoever — because the network would have more money and broadcast windows available for West Coast content.
(If ESPN takes a significant stake, that’s bad news for the Pac-12. Very bad news.)
NBC also has an important role to play. Its contract with Notre Dame expires at the conclusion of the 2025 season, and all signs indicate the network plans to retain the rights to Irish home games.
The smaller the stake NBC carves out of the Big Ten’s inventory, the more cash on hand for Notre Dame.
And if Notre Dame gets paid, the chance of further disruption to the Power Five landscape diminishes.
Why? We believe the Irish would prefer to remain Independent in their next contract cycle, so long as the revenue numbers and College Football Playoff access meet the desired threshold.
That, too, would benefit the Pac-12.
Without Notre Dame as the 17th team, the Big Ten’s strategic calculation changes, and a second wave of realignment becomes less likely (although certainly not implausible).
A single Pac-12 school, or a combination of Pac-12 schools, seemingly packs more value to the Big Ten when combined with the mighty Irish to form an 18- or 20-team super-duper conference.
Without the Irish, no combination of Pac-12 schools creates an equivalent financial windfall for the existing Big Ten members, who are likely to collect more than $75 million annually in total media rights distributions.
As we see it, if NBC and Notre Dame tie the knot for another contract cycle …
The Big Ten stands on 16, prompting the SEC to do the same …
The sport enters the era of an expanded playoff with two 16-team behemoths at the controls, just as their media partners, Fox and ESPN, prefer …
The ACC remains locked into its grant-of-rights contract into the next decade …
And the Pac-12 and Big 12 move forward, perhaps independently, perhaps in some alliance with each other or the ACC …
The trick for Kliavkoff is securing a contractual commitment from Oregon, Washington and Stanford that provides enough security to put the Four Corner schools at ease while attracting the best possible offers from potential media partners.
The Pac-12’s exclusive 30-day negotiating window with ESPN and Fox ends on (or around) Aug. 4, and there is little reason to believe either network will make an offer the conference cannot refuse.
Barring a twist in tactics — a possibility that cannot be discounted — the Pac-12 will head to the open market with the full complement of its media rights available, including the 36 football games that have been sequestered on the Pac-12 Networks for the past decade.
Yes, the loss of the Los Angeles market is a massive blow to the conference’s valuation.
That said, the league’s rights are probably undervalued because the current deal was signed in 2011 and the price of live sports content has soared in the decade since.
I would note that Warren explicitly said that no additional expansion would happen before the new TV deal is done.
LikeLike
Maybe he’s right. But it sounds like a lot of wishful thinking from Pac 12 folks. Their conference is in trouble. Its survival is iffy at the moment.
LikeLike
It sounds like a lot of wishful thinking from Pac 12 folks.
And yet, the core idea is pretty reasonable. We know Notre Dame would like to remain Independent, and would accept less money, as long as it’s not too much less. Without the Irish, any further poaching of the Pac-12 would dilute the Big Ten. Those conclusions seem sound, not wishful.
LikeLike
We will see. At this point I’d be surprised if the Big Ten and SEC stay put for 14 years or indefinitely and the Pac 12 lives on with the addition of SDSU and Fresno. It’s possible, but it does not seem to be the way this is headed. Time will tell.
LikeLike
Right now, I’d say expecting the ACC GOR to be broken before the mid-2030s sounds like wishful thinking.
The B12 pair aren’t breaking theirs. The P12 pair aren’t breaking theirs. Teams of lawyers from ACC schools have reviewed the GOR looking for loopholes, and haven’t mentioned any yet. Plenty of lawyers have said it is way too risky to take to court.
On the other side I see internet conspiracy theories and rumors.
LikeLike
What is the wishful thinking part?
* Warren said the B10 wouldn’t add anyone else before the TV deal is done, so his first part is correct
* Then he analyzes the importance of what ESPN and NBC do, but he makes no predictions. Doesn’t everyone think ND would prefer to get paid and stay independent?
* If ND is not available, does that not make further B10 expansion less likely? We all know ND would make the money work for any partner schools, but the 4 P12 schools don’t bring full share B10 value on their own (Dodds said the B10 would want $250M for them, Thompson estimated them as worth $150M)
* His big prediction is that without ND, the B10 will end up staying at 16. That’s a perfectly reasonable guess, and one plenty of neutral people have also made. He doesn’t say it’s definitive.
* He closes by thinking the P12 rights are currently undervalued. I think most people agree, since all those tier 3 games can get more exposure now. He doesn’t say what their value is, which is normally where the wishful thinking would come in.
LikeLike
It’s all plausible and possible. But it’s the best case scenario for the Pac 12 and it’s very possible it won’t go that way. Hence calling it wishful thinking.
LikeLike
If he had predicted how the network deals would go, I’d agree with you. It would be wishful thinking to say ESPN will take little or none of the B10’s rights, and NBC won’t either.
He was also careful to say B10 expansion without ND was still plausible.
If you want to focus just on the part about the B10 and SEC staying at 16 if ND stays independent, I don’t think he phrased it over-optimistically. I’ll agree that would be the best case scenario for the P12, but I also think millions agree with him that that is the most likely outcome if ND stays independent.
He could be completely wrong, and he does admit that.
LikeLike
Exactly right. The ‘PAC-whisperer’ Wilner has been in a zombie-like state of denial since he was caught flat-footed by this bomb shell announcement. He has actually said on an LA podcast, that he believes buyer’s remorse might set in with USC/UCLA over the next two years and they’ll change their minds. 😂 I realize the PAC-12 is a large part of his identity, and I do feel bad for him, but that train has left the station, and another one is likely enroute.
LikeLike
I believe his main concern was the travel for non-revenue sports, and whether that would hurt future recruiting. That could turn into an issue, but not one they’ll leave the B10 over. I don’t think he’s thought through what can be done with online education, recorded lectures, Zoom office hours, and other new teaching technology to ease the burden for traveling students.
There are still people convinced that NE should go back to the B12 because they’d thrive there.
LikeLike
That is correct. I didn’t want to get that wrong so I went back and listened to it. He was talking specifically about the Olympic sports, which is more understandable.
LikeLike
The ‘buyer’s remorse’ comment he made was in reference to the long term difficulty their Olympic sports would face.
LikeLike
The ‘PAC-whisperer’ Wilner has been in a zombie-like state of denial since he was caught flat-footed by this bomb shell announcement.
Wilner is in the top tier of college sports reporters, which still means he is wrong much of the time, but at least not all of the time. Regional sports reporters cannot help but be homers. Without Pac-12 fans, he has no job. Naturally, he has to cater to them.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-in-a-dance-with-espn
Canzano’s latest piece, with more from Bob Thompson. He’s got a link to Frank’s blog post about where B10 alumni move to.
[talking about their exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and Fox ending soon]
I wondered how much Kliavkoff might know and be able to share on that front. So I reached out to Bob Thompson, the former president of Fox Sports Networks, for an answer.
Said Thompson: “He’s probably got a number from ESPN at this point. Is it their best, last, final? Probably not. But given there’s about a week to go they’ve got to be honing in on it.”
Thompson said the Pac-12 should also have an idea about the interest of other television and streaming bidders who aren’t involved in the exclusive window.
“Nothing precludes the others from reaching out or back-channeling their interest to the conference or most likely to the conference’s television consultant,” he said. “So he probably has a good idea who else out there might be interested.”
…
On potential expansion targets for the Pac-12:
“Certainly San Diego State and the San Diego market would be attractive,” Thompson said. “I kind of go back and forth after that between Las Vegas, Fresno and Boise. They’re almost interchangeable. None of them blow you away from a market standpoint. There’s not a real clear second partner for the Pac-12. Beyond that, you could go to SMU or try to poach the University of Houston before they get into the Big 12.”
…
The Wall Street Journal conducted a study in 2018 and found that only four television markets drew more than 1 percent of the graduates from every Big Ten university. They were New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. Granted, those cities draw graduates from colleges nationwide and are heavily influenced by the industries of technology and politics. But it’s interesting that none of those cities are located in the midwest.
The Big Ten has now added Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA. All of those markets had high concentrations of alumni. But also, they’re just major TV markets.
I don’t think Warren chased USC and UCLA primarily because he wants to connect with alumni of Big Ten campuses. It’s far more likely that Fox coveted the ability to span from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles in a manner no college conference has ever done. But I found it interesting that Warren mentioned it.
UNIFIED FOR NOW: The prevailing sentiment among the six Pac-12 athletic directors I’ve communicated with in the last two weeks is that the remaining 10 members of the conference feel like they’re in this together.
…
I’ve wondered whether unequal distributions of revenue from the conference might be on the table. To this point, I don’t have a good answer. Media rights distributions have mostly been even. There was a small provision in the last media deal that gave small bonuses to programs that appeared more frequently on ABC. But everyone got the same base distribution.
It’s partially what drove UCLA and USC into the arms of the Big Ten, I’m told. I don’t think that will change.
LikeLike
For some reason you omitted this sentence: “But if a high concentration of Big Ten alumni really is what gets Warren’s attention, I’d offer that Stanford/Cal would be high on his list of potential additions.”
LikeLike
I felt bad for excerpting as much as I did. He’s got a site to run and needs the clicks as part of his business model. I appreciate his work being available, and he has a family to support.
I quoted the whole later section when he discussed the alumni aspect and mentioned SF. I assumed most here could connect those dots themselves. if not, they could go read the whole article.
LikeLike
He’s got a link to Frank’s blog post about where B10 alumni move to.
It surprises me how often this little niche corner of the internet comes up in mainstream discussion.
LikeLike
Take it for what it’s worth–I’ve never posted before, so my credibility SHOULD be suspect (and quite frankly, I don’t care if anyone believes me, I’m not looking to be some internet insider)–but I’ve been told by persons deeply connected into the athletics at one of the Big Ten schools that Notre Dame to the Big Ten “is happening.” Almost sounded like it’s already been decided. Could be why the rights deal has been delayed. Same source indicated that Oregon is a tough sell for Big Ten administrators because of subpar academics. Kind of a bummer if true, I really hoped for Oregon. A yearly Oregon (Nike) vs. Maryland (UnderArmour) showdown might’ve spurred a national competition for ugliest uniforms.
LikeLike
I don’t automatically believe you’re right but I’m always happy to hear rumors. So Notre Dame to the Big Ten, and Oregon might be a no. Who else then? Stanford? Washington? Cal?
LikeLike
No timeline was given, no partner was discussed. The strange thing was I never asked about Notre Dame, it was the response I got when asking about another school. This same source sort of poured cold water on Kansas (not the school I asked about, it was also brought up spontaneously) for the same reasons as Oregon. That was interesting to me, I always thought Kansas was pretty well regarded academically. The same source did indicate that 20 was likely a tough number to expand beyond, but seemed to think that 20 would come sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
We’ve all knocked out Kansas a long time ago as well; the market or football brand just isn’t there.
LikeLike
And they’re barely maintaining AAU status, which doesn’t help either. KU needs hoops to become a lot more valuable.
LikeLike
If 20 is coming, and soon, and Oregon is out, then you’d have to think that 3 other Pac 12 teams are involved. Because it doesn’t seem like the ACC is ready to break apart any time soon.
So if we take this rumor as true, then the logical group would be Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, and Cal.
If the Big Ten presidents can stomach Oregon, then maybe Oregon over Cal. But I can see where, if they really care about academics, Cal would be preferred over Oregon.
I’d be somewhat surprised. But I don’t think it would be a bad move, personally.
LikeLike
Look on the bright side. For this to happen, ND has to escape the ACC’s GOR. They’d be the first P5-level school to ever do it (I don’t know if a lower level school ever has – I doubt it), and it would at least show a path to doing it. If one school can get out, then maybe others can follow that same path.
LikeLike
Well, it’s the GOR for non-football sports, right?
How much money is that? I’m pretty certain it pales compared to ND football.
LikeLike
The ACC says football is 80% of their TV deal, and that’s how they’ve been paying ND, so I assume that same ratio would apply.
LikeLike
So not a lot of money.
The difference between the B10 payout and what NBC is offering could well be more than a few million.
LikeLike
I’ve seen it estimated at $100-150M for ND to get out, with both the GOR and the exit fee. ND gets about 1/3 as much as the other ACC schools because they are a full ACCN partner.
I don’t know if there would be an additional penalty for not playing the 5 games per year vs the ACC, or not not joining the ACC if they joined any conference for football.
LikeLike
Attila,
Welcome, and thanks for sharing. It’s entirely plausible, and you’re presenting it in an honest way. It may be right, it may not, such is the way of info from other people. We’ll find out soon enough.
Personally, I’d be a little surprised if it’s true. ND has several legal barriers to deal with. They have the ACC GOR for everything but football, they have the commitment to play 5 games per year against the ACC, and they have the commitment to only join the ACC if they join a conference for football. All of those are potentially surmountable (non-FB GOR is more affordable to consider buying out of, the other agreements may have exit clauses with pre-determined penalties), but they could also be inescapable in reality.
More likely to me would be some sort of B10/ND/NBC agreement, or ND saying they’d come but can’t until the 2030s.
The Oregon part is certainly plausible. There were rumors the COP/C didn’t want any more candidates at the NE level or lower academically, and UO is probably a bit below them. I also think their lack of market means they might bring less money than other options, and the COP/C would certainly factor that in as well (and then publicly blame academics).
LikeLike
Nobody was more surprised than me. Hence why I ended 10+ years of silence reading all of your thoughts on this blog and felt the need to share. I don’t know why ND would commit now while negotiating their rights with NBC. The only thing I can think of is that NBC invested into the Big Ten and was part of encouraging it. That’s pure speculation on my part. I’ll share if I learn anything more…this source has told me multiple things well in advance of them happening, so I have no reason to doubt the info, but it is hearsay…
LikeLike
Its just hard to believe someone would pay $75 million for a single school. If they have a bad year, you are in red ink. With a conference, you’ve got other teams to take up the slack. Plus NBC has never been one to make a splash with their college sports bids.
Since USC/UCLA came out I felt like it was inevitable that ND would move to the B$G. The only question was whether they defer it 5 to 10 years or do it now. The 3rd option would be if they were going to chose not to play the NIL/pay for play game. Despite their talk, I don’t think the 3rd option was likely.
LikeLike
bullet,
View at Medium.com
The numbers next to each school indicate the average number of viewers per week from 2015–19. Streaming numbers are included when available.
Conference championship games and bowl games are not included in these numbers. Games that do not have available data were counted as zero.
Ohio State (5.19M)
Alabama (5.09M)
Michigan (4.18M)
Notre Dame (3.61M)
LSU (3.22M)
Auburn (3.12M)
Georgia (2.91M)
Oklahoma (2.90M)
Clemson (2.67M)
Penn State (2.55M)
The SEC will get $300M from the ESPN deal replacing the CBS deal, but that includes the SECCG. It’s $300M total, I’ll guess the CG is worth $50M of that because of the much higher viewership. That leaves $250M for 14 games, or $17.9M per game. NBC would be paying $10.7M per game for ND.
So is ND worth 60% of the SEC’s best game?
ND averaged 3.61M viewers over the past 5 years. The SEC game would need to get 6.02M to match viewers/dollar. I did a quick average from 2019 only, and CBS earned about 6.7M viewers on average.
Based on that, NBC would be paying ND a little more per viewer ($2.96) than ESPN is paying the SEC ($2.67). That’s close enough that over factors may make it worthwhile.
I’m not saying it’s a great deal for NBC, but if it’s the price for staying in CFB it isn’t unreasonable.
LikeLike
I’m saying its a bad risk management strategy. ND goes into a slump as they did post Holtz and you lose your shirt. ND is certainly worth that in a conference. But they are worth lot less as an individual because of the risk.
LikeLike
I agree, it’s a risk. I wouldn’t do it with my money, but the executives at NBC may view the risk differently. They have data on what happens to viewership when ND is down. They also know how valuable having ND on NBC is to them. If we had all the info they do, maybe the deal would make sense on paper.
Or maybe they will say no.
LikeLike
The only way ND to the Big Ten can happen soon in my opinion is if NBC categorically rejects their $75 million a year ask from ND and tells them to join the Big Ten flat out.
Otherwise, there’s no real reason for ND to join right now. They can stay independent for another 10 years and let the dust settle on expansion; see how big the Big Ten gets. See what other schools join the Big Ten and SEC. See what the playoff looks like.
And as we’ve discussed many times here, the Big Ten is never going to shut ND out of the playoff. That wouldn’t force them to join the Big Ten, it’d just piss their leaders off.
ND will join if the media situation changes (I wrote a post above for why I think ND might join the Big Ten eventually in the next 2 decades give or take) as media changes force aggregation of eyeballs to stay relevant in a more streaming dictated world. Only way to grab eyeballs may be to be part of a giant conglomeration of schools; an independent like ND probably won’t be able to drive streaming views as capably as they can get views on NBC.
The Oregon point does make sense and it’s something we’ve debated endlessly the past week or two.their
Oregon is in a tough spot academically; their AAU status is likely among the most tenuous of any current member, and it’s ranked considerably below Nebraska in most prestige metrics; they aren’t a research intensive institution like the rest of the Big Ten. Should or would that be held against them?
Does that matter to the presidents? None of us know.
Washington and Stanford probably check the most boxes of the teams left in the Pac-12: academically, athletically. Stanford fanbase is like Northwestern as a small private, but they have a lock on much of the recruiting of high end recruits that want to attend the most prestigious undergrad in FBS.
Location wise those two are located in the largest 2 markets in the West (San Fran and Seattle); of course Washington delivers its market more than Stanford. Stanford has the annual ND game since late 90s as a boost, and the Big Ten presidents would probably love to have Stanford in the club.
But going back to what I said first, the only way ND joins the Big Ten soon is if NBC tells them they’d rather take a Big Ten media deal with ND than pay ND $75 million separately. Even then I find it hard to believe that it happens sooner rather than later. ND in the mid-2030s makes a lot more sense than now.
LikeLike
Oregon is dead last in the AAU. Dead last. They only did $114 million in research last year. Compare that to Missouri and Kansas, who are both also near the bottom of the AAU. Both did more than three times that in FY21, both are going to be in the $380 to $390 million range for FY21, nearly tied. And Oregon is similar in size to the other two. Oregon has 1150 full time faculty. Missouri has 1270 Kansas has 1310. So it’s not about size. They just barely do any research. It’s amazing they’re in the AAU at all. The closest to them is maybe UC Santa Cruz, but UCSC is still quite a bit ahead of them, and they are also dramatically smaller. Not only that, but Oregon’s research growth has been pretty flat for the last 5 years, whereas Missouri and Kansas have shown good growth, with both growing by around 30% over the past few years. I just don’t see any possible way Oregon doesn’t get kicked out of the AAU.
LikeLike
UO had a medical school back in the day, but then the state made it a separate institution within the school system. It’s now the Oregon Health & Science University (and includes bioengineering), and in 2018 it did over $370M in research (over $260M in federal). UO would still rank reasonably high if the med school counted for them.
As is, they are on path to be removed unless the AAU changes its modus operandi.
LikeLike
Oh, they also don’t have an engineering school – that’s all at OrSU. So another avenue for research is blocked for them.
Only 3 AAU members have no medical school and no engineering school – Oregon, Indiana, and Brandeis. Only 5 AAU members lack an engineering school – those 3 plus Emory and UNC. 15 members lack a medical school – the 3 above plus several big time engineering schools, several UC system schools, and Princeton.
LikeLike
Brian: “Only 3 AAU members have no medical school and no engineering school – Oregon, Indiana, and Brandeis.”
Indiana University has the largest medical school in the US and recently opened a school of computer engineering.
https://medicine.iu.edu/
https://luddy.indiana.edu/index.html
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s not as if UO professors do not care about research. The state placed the subjects that the AAU values most highly at other institutions.
LikeLike
If we’re talking federal research dollars, Oregon is at about $80 million, which ranks outside the top 100. Missouri and Kansas (again, schools near the bottom of the AAU) are almost up to $200 million in federal research dollars in FY21, which should rank somewhere in the 60s nationally. Missouri is on track to invest about $2 billion into expanding research over the next several years, mostly related to medical and nuclear, and I’ve seen projections that they should get up around $300 million in federal research dollars once these investments take hold, which would likely rank somewhere in the 50s nationally by the time it happens. And Kansas just got a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center designation, so they should see some increased federal dollars from that. So point is the bottom of the AAU is going up, and Oregon does not seem to be going up with it.
LikeLike
Colin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities
I think the devil is in the details.
The school of medicine is actually based at IUPUI in Indianapolis. It has a branch in Bloomington, but that isn’t it’s main base so IU doesn’t get to count it.
The Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering offers 1 engineering major, Intelligent Systems Engineering. The program is not ABET accredited, which is the fine print of what Wikipedia listed. ABET is the big engineering accreditation body. This program must be accredited by a computer science body instead.
LikeLike
UO will always be low on research based on how the state has organized their education system. OrSU does the engineering research. OHSU does the medical research. Those are the largest buckets for federal research. UO mostly does life sciences and psychology research. The AAU knows this, so either they understand and allow UO to be low in those areas or they will push them out.
Click to access annual_report_2020.pdf
By the MUP report (covers most things AAU looks at), UO has 1 measure (annual giving) in the top 25 public universities and 2 more in 26-50 (faculty in national academies, endowment). That puts them in the top 40 of public schools overall, above KU (and OrSU).
The previous year they also had 26-50 for faculty awards.
LikeLike
It’s crazy that this report, which is reporting numbers from FY18, is the most current one available. I have the FY21 research numbers for both Missouri and Kansas (and a few other schools) and their federal research expenditures are close to double these numbers now. But if this is the pace of reporting then these reports won’t reflect that until around 2025.
LikeLike
It takes time to collect and verify data, and they have a lot of different data sets to pull and collate. It makes sense to keep them all from the same year. Maybe some of the numbers get adjusted after a while, so they wait until that has happened.
LikeLike
The only way ND to the Big Ten can happen soon in my opinion is if NBC categorically rejects their $75 million a year ask from ND and tells them to join the Big Ten flat out.
NBC could simply tell them their package is not worth $75 million and give them a few weeks to go shop. I think the only imaginable buyer (besides NBC) is CBS.
LikeLike
Interesting. My boss, who used to be a programming exec at ESPN, also believes it may be in the cards. He made clear he has NO inside knowledge, it’s just his (Spidey) sense that the NBC deal will somehow be incorporated into the B1G deal. I believe him when he says he doesn’t know, but I did find it odd he would just throw that out there. It’s not his nature. I differ with you on Oregon though, I think they get in.
LikeLike
This is very interesting. My best friend (65 years) is an ND grad. Prez. of ND club. His wife is a St. Mary’s grad. They are big time donors . He said ND always plays it close to the vest. He told me emphatically he DOESN”T know what ND will do. FWIW He did however say that something seems to be in the wind. Not that it really means anything, but when the BIG 10 last invited ND to join I forget the year the ND faculty voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining Big 10.
LikeLike
’99 was the last time. Their faculty wanted to join, but rest of the institution was against it including alumni/boosters and fans.
This time alumni/boosters and fans seem much more undecided and acknowledge that everything is different.
Obviously Big Ten having 4 teams on both coasts is a big difference instead of being an 11 team ranging from Penn State to Iowa as is the potential for further expansion up to 18 or 20 that would likely only add more teams on the coasts.
LikeLike
This time alumni/boosters and fans seem much more undecided and acknowledge that everything is different.
In fact, prominent alumni have called for ND to join the Big Ten flat-out. Former QB Brady Quinn is an example. I don’t know if it’s a majority yet — I suspect the biggest donors don’t post on message boards — but it used to be almost unheard of.
LikeLike
Doug ” the BIG 10 last invited ND to join I forget the year the ND faculty voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining Big 10.”
The year was 1999 and there was an article in Sports Illustrated that said it was a “done deal”.
LikeLike
I differ with you on Oregon though, I think they get in.
It’s not just academics. Oregon has played way above its historical strength for the past 15 years, largely riding on Nike’s checkbook. College sports programs have a tendency to revert to the mean, and if that happens, is Oregon a market you prioritize? I submit it is not. An addition whose value depends on a team performing above its historical average is always a little bit suspect.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree. It’s not just academics but market, concentration of B10 alums, and recruiting grounds (for both football talent and OOS students).
Oregon is low on pretty much all of them.
LikeLike
I’ve been told by persons deeply connected into the athletics at one of the Big Ten schools that Notre Dame to the Big Ten “is happening.” . . . . Same source indicated that Oregon is a tough sell for Big Ten administrators because of subpar academics.
I’ve no prediction on ND joining the Big Ten, but if they do, I expect just one more school initially, which would be Stanford or Washington. All the available data suggest that the remaining Pac-12 schools are dilutive. You don’t want odd numbers, so ND needs a dance partner, but it doesn’t need three.
LikeLike
“You don’t want odd numbers, so ND needs a dance partner, but it doesn’t need three.”
I know this is accepted logic (and for a reason). But with the B10 discussing scrapping divisions anyway before expansion, since the NCAA no longer requires them for a CCG, do we know for sure if that axiom still holds true? I haven’t put much brain power into this question, so there’s probably plenty of reasons to still be equal numbers. Just had me wondering.
LikeLike
Odd numbers are still difficult, even without divisions. An odd number of teams cannot play 9 conference games—someone would need to play fewer games than everyone else.
Also, it means at least one team must have a bye every week. Nobody wants their bye the last day of the season, unless they are in first or second place and can use it to prepare for the CCG—which is unfair to the other team in that game.
I suspect if they went to odd numbers, they’d rotate the short straw among the bottom feeders like Rutgers. Still, you would rather not do that.
LikeLike
There we go. Knew I wasn’t thinking it through all the way. Thanks!
LikeLike
Warren DID say you didn’t have to have even numbers. Although for many reasons, it doesn’t work well. But they could go to 17 and give ND a few years to work out of their scheduled games.
LikeLike
Warren DID say you didn’t have to have even numbers. Although for many reasons, it doesn’t work well. But they could go to 17 and give ND a few years to work out of their scheduled games.
I am sure Warren knows the drawbacks of odd numbers. He probably doesn’t want to say anything he could have to walk back someday. ND is certainly a school they would do it for, maybe the only one.
But they could go to 17 and give ND a few years to work out of their scheduled games.
I assume you mean having ND be the team that doesn’t play 9 games? It would be really awkward if they either just barely miss, or just barely make, the championship game due to a half-game difference in the standings. That is why I assumed they would stick one of the bottom feeders with the short straw. But I would not rule out your idea.
LikeLike
No. I’m saying, for example, they add Washington as #17 in 2024 and give Notre Dame several years to join, in say 2027. I think Penn St. joined 5 years before they got in the conference for football. Houston joined the SWC in 1971 but didn’t begin conference football play until 1976.
LikeLike
While I think you are right about the dilutive, I get the impression Warren wants a big presence in the west. So you get ND +3 and its not dilutive. But if you get any two w/o ND it is.
Personally, the bigger you get the less like a conference it is. They ought to do ND + 1.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree, all 4 of them are dilutive on their own. But my guess is that any 3 of them + ND isn’t dilutive. If 3 elite academic schools on the West coast in major markets (or UO) is the price for adding ND, that’s not a high price and the B10 would gladly pay it.
LikeLike
Love the handle. Publish more, just for the handle.
My wife is a St. Mary’s alumna and once upon a time a member of the ND concert band. She is opposed to ND in the B1G.
LikeLike
“My wife is a St. Mary’s alumna and once upon a time a member of the ND concert band. She is opposed to ND in the B1G.”
Things are now a lot different at ND vs 1999. ND no longer sells out every game. That NBC contract now looks like peanuts. Half of the schedule is eye-glazing ACC cupcakes plus Navy. Archrival USC is headed for the Big Ten.
I don’t think ND is joining the Big Ten in the near future but it’s easy to see why the Independence hardliners have softened their stance.
LikeLike
I imagine you probably want Beth Mowins doing the play by play on the MD-OR game! Fingernails on the chalkboard calling a game with clashing colors.
LikeLike
John Canzano interviewed Bob Thompson on his radio show. It was the basis for his most recent article, but at the end they discussed late night games and how many he expected USC and UCLA to have to play (2-3 each, against teams like PU) as well as all things P12 TV deal.
In another segment (not linked here) he and Jon Wilner preview tomorrow’s P12 media day. Neither expects any big news. They also announce that they are starting a podcast together, on the P12 and more: “Canzano & Wilner”.
LikeLike
I guess it’s up to the West Coast to turn the lights out. 🌛
LikeLike
There is a part of me that thinks that if the Big Ten wants both Washington and Stanford down the road, maybe you take them now anyways and work them into the contracts. I assume those 2 likely have buy ins.
Or you take them in 2 years when the playoff money comes along (assuming they haven’t signed a new GoR).
To me those 2 are far and aways the best fits remaining in the Pac-12. The Oregon academic situation is always going to be murky in terms of nobody knowing how Big Ten presidents feel about Oregon as a university.
I don’t see the argument for 4 more on the West Coast. I think 2 builds out the West wing enough and isn’t overly dilutive in the longer run.
You can get the West Coast markets with just 4 schools out there and mitigate their travel issues somewhat, that also gets you enough late night content windows.
It feels like USC, UCLA, Washington, Stanford is the best set of 4 that fit the conference and give it most of the Pac-12’s brands and markets other than Oregon.
If ND joins later on, figure it out with the ACC schools as #20.
I think timing 2 more adds for 2026 makes the most sense given the likely doubling or tripling of the playoff money.
LikeLike
Or you take them in 2 years when the playoff money comes along (assuming they haven’t signed a new GoR).
I am not quite following your reasoning. Stanford and Washington do not materially increase the playoff money that’s coming in 2026. It just has to be split 18 ways rather than 16. Why would they do that, unless those two schools pay for themselves right now?
Anyhow, if the Big Ten does want them, I don’t think it has two years to decide. The Pac-12 will probably have its new media deal by then.
You can get the West Coast markets with just 4 schools out there and mitigate their travel issues somewhat, that also gets you enough late night content windows.
Not disagreeing with you here, but that really sticks it to the bottom-end programs. Ohio State will never be on at 10:30pm ET. It’s the likes of Purdue and Rutgers who would bear the brunt of such games.
LikeLike
The reason I include extra sources of money is because the same thing happened back when Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers were added; yeah they had buy ins, but the extra money from the conference championship and CFP smoothed the numbers for everyone else pretty quickly.
I don’t know how the CFP money will be split next time; will it be dependent on size of conference? Will the Big Ten be able to demand a larger share if it takes more Pac-12 teams? Will the Big Ten and SEC be as willing to give similar shares to the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 as they got in the 2014-2026 contract?
It could be less dilutive, but just hard to say right now.
I also think the Big Ten may have a stronger argument for cutting the Pac-12 out of the Rose Bowl if it takes 2 more teams. That’s something that has to be factored in somehow.
LikeLike
Marc,
If they join when the expanded CFP money comes in, you can hide their dilutive effect.
Say the 16 B10 schools are getting $80M each, and the 2 additions are valued at $50M each. Then say the expanded CFP would add $15M per school to all of the P5.
80*16 = 1280 + 2*50 = 1380/18 = 76.67 (a drop of $3.33M for the current 16)
But the CFP adds $270M to the expanded B10.
1380 + 270 = 1650/18 = $91.67M
So the original 16 see a jump of $11.67M and are still happy.
Another option, of course, is a buy in period.
LikeLike
Washington isn’t that great of help regarding travel issues. It’s 1100 miles away.. As much of a dumpster fire Cal is regarding football, it makes way more sense as a travel partner. Cal would also provide more games in California for Big Ten schools looking to recruit out there. Having a cupcake on the schedule isn’t necessarily a bad thing for the big clubs. Curb stomping Cal will only help recruiting for other Big Ten schools as opposed to getting smoked by USC. Add in the prior report that USC doesn’t want Oregon or Washington in there, I can see Cal being the 4th west coast team added instead of Washington. That is even if the Big Ten wants 4 schools out there which I doubt.
LikeLike
“As much of a dumpster fire Cal is regarding football, it makes way more sense as a travel partner”
If Cal makes sense than Colorado makes even more sense. Far better travel logistics, virgin TV market, new recruiting grounds, fast growing region, Mountain Time Zone, archrival Nebraska.
LikeLike
Very true, one must also keep in mind if an uneven or divisible by 4 (or 6) total membership induces scheduling pods that put Husker with the west coast schools; Colorado at least provides a historical rival that is near same distance as Madison or Champaign.
LikeLike
Colin,
I’m not a big fan of adding Cal, but CU doesn’t make sense to me either.
* It’s far from everyone (Cal is very close to Stanford, and close to the LA schools).
* SF is a much larger TV market, and it’s not clear Stanford alone brings it. Double dipping may help.
* CA is better recruiting grounds than CO. Where do you think CU recruits? They actually have more CA players than CO players on their current roster.
* CA is large and growing
* How is being in the MTZ a help? It’s so sparsely populated that CU’d just have to play when PTZ schools can.
* I admit, NE would prefer CU and that rivalry is more valuable than Cal’s.
* Cal >> CU academically if that matters
* No more political interference issues in CA
CU isn’t a bad option, but it has limited upside to me. UU and UA even more so. ASU is in Phoenix, but has no brand and is a little weak academically. To me, Cal would probably be the best option of those 5 if the B10 is just taking 1.
LikeLike
Brian, my responses to your comments . . .
* SF is a much larger TV market, and it’s not clear Stanford alone brings it.
Stanford alone doesn’t bring it and Stanford + Cal doesn’t either. They are not football schools and NorCal probably has more USC/UCLA fans than Stanford/Cal have.
* CA is better recruiting grounds than CO.
SOUTHERN California has the rich recruiting grounds. See map in link.
https://mode.com/blog/niney-years-of-college-football-recruiting/
* CA is large and growing
California is losing population. See link
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/04/california-population-decline/
* Cal >> CU academically if that matters.
True but Colorado is a better cultural fit for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Colin,
SF is a pro sports town anyway. Nobody “brings it” in the sense you mean. I’m simply talking about it being in the footprint for ad rates and the B10 getting full BTN rates. Does the area covered that way grow if you add Cal? I don’t know.
There is zero evidence that the LA schools are powerful in the SF market. I’m sure they have a lot of alumni there, but so do many schools. The one CFB fan map I’ve seen showed Cal and Stanford controlling SF it self, with UO the most popular school in the surrounding area. I’m sure people will jump on the USC bandwagon if they win big.
As for your NFL player map, SF looks pretty good to me. I see about 300 players from SoCal. I see about 125 in NoCal. That’s not far behind southern FL (170), and similar to the Houston area. I’m not claiming NoCal is as good for recruiting as SoCal, but it’s still pretty good. Plus, being in NoCal makes it easy for a coach to pop down to SoCal to see a recruit.
Okay, CA is huge with a roughly stagnant population. So what? It could be cut in half and would still dwarf CO.
Is CU a better cultural fit? It may be for NE, but I bet WI fits more with Cal. Neither school is a great cultural fit for much of the B10.
LikeLike
NoCal still has far more potential recruits (both football and OOS students) than CO.
And far more B10 alums. Cal alao has a far better academic rep and more potential to gain T-shirt fans if they’re ever good again.
LikeLike
When you see the phrase “travel partner” in an expansion proposal, you know it is not happening—at least, not for that. The major sports are flying no matter what, whether it is L.A. to San Francisco or L.A. to Seattle. Once you are in the plane, there is very little difference between the two.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of adding Cal is to make Gavin Newsom shut up. I suspect he cannot stop UCLA from joining the Big Ten, but if Cal joins too then that ends the argument. Cal is obviously great academically, and California is so big you could justify four schools from the state. But it will not be because of travel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
California’s population is just about equal to PA (12.8m), OH (11.7m), MI (10m), and MN (5.7m) combined.
I think the B1G could handle 4 teams in CA with 2 teams each in the LA & SF markets. It works for MLB. The A’s do need a new ballpark though.
LikeLike
Alan, I agree 100%.
LikeLike
Maybe the A’s, Stanford and Cal could all share 1 new field. Cal’s stadium needs improvements. Stanford’s seats 4000, which is probably more than the A’s actually need. The schools may have more money than the A’s, despite their debts.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree, but you have to admit that “travel partner” is at least applicable for once when discussing Cal/Stanford or USC/UCLA. They could actually share planes, easily bus to the other for games, and would make sense as a 2 game road trip in a sport played multiple times per week.
I’d guess most of the teams didn’t fly between LA and SF, but the revenue sports probably did.
LikeLike
Yes, “travel partner” does make sense for teams in the same metro area. But the term is so often used for teams hundreds of miles away, and it just doesn’t make a lot of sense for that.
LikeLike
“As much of a dumpster fire Cal is regarding football, it makes way more sense as a travel partner.”
I’m not sure I would say that. Washington made the Pac12 CCG three years in a row recently (2016-2018) and won two of them (2016, 2018). They also made the CCG in 2020’s shortened season. They had a losing season in 2021, but that was their first losing season since 2009. They also won a national championship in 1991 (granted that’s a long time ago now). They’re 749–462–50 (.594) overall.
Conversely, Cal’s last conference championship was 2006, when Jeff Tedford was on the sidelines and Marshawn Lynch was playing RB. They have yet to see a Pac12 CCG. Their overall is 684–556–51 (.530).
While their overall winning percentages are comparable, within the last 42 years (since 1980 — an arbitrary cutoff date on my part to determine a ‘modern’ era) Washington has averaged 7.3 wins/season vs Cal’s 5.2. Of course there’s any number of ways to cut the data, but it’s still saying on average recent Washington teams have won enough to be bowl eligible while Cal has not.
That is to say that while neither have been Alabama, and that’s never been or will ever be their ceilings, I don’t think they’ve been equivalent either.
Cal also suffers IMO from (a) Stanford being the better choice for their shared market, and (b) the issue that similarly plagued Texas schools that used to long for a B12 invite. Simply put, how many schools from a single state do you need in your conference in order to control the state but before it starts to become a detriment? That was always the knock on the B12 inviting more Texas teams, at least until they didn’t have much choice. If the B10 were to acquire USC, UCLA, and Stanford there may not be room for Cal just because their sports/television value is further reduced from redundancy.
I also think that just talking today’s environment it’s likely Washington has the higher potential ceiling of the two in football. Seattle is a much bigger market now than it was in 1980 or earlier, and WSU is never going to be the in-state competition for eyeballs that Stanford is for Cal.
LikeLike
I personally think in the end, neither Cal nor Washington get in. Just adding Stanford would give you the majority of the benefits of another Cal school or West coast school without adding another mouth to feed.
USC and UCLA in a given year with a 9 game conference schedule will have 9 conference home games combined in California with one of them being against each other . That leaves 8 for the rest of the Big Ten. Add Stanford and that goes 13 or 14 total conference games in California. Take out the games between them and it’s 10 or 11 against current Big Ten teams depending on the year. If Cal is added now the total number of conference games in California would be 18 but there would be 6 against each other leaving only 12 for the rest of the big ten. That’s really not much of an increase worth adding another California team or even another West coast team that can’t pay for itself.
If the goal is to actually get Big Ten teams in California or on the west coast to connect with alumni, recruits , donors and what not there are diminishing returns after one other addition with some years only being 1 extra conference game on the coast.
LikeLike
I think we’re in agreement on the B10 perhaps at most inviting one more P12 and then calling it a day. Stanford checks boxes the others don’t, and is probably the single candidate that wouldn’t pay for itself but still be viable (ostensibly due to being another piece in the ND puzzle).
Personally I don’t think they bother with more teams until the ACC GOR is coming up — unless of course ND wants to come along, which still seems doubtful. After all, supposedly they weren’t even looking now — USC approached them, not the other way around (if reports are to be believed).
But in the event I’m wrong, and the B10 isn’t content to just shiv the P12 in the back and is also looking for the knees, my current belief in this hypothetical is that Cal is a terrific add in every category except the one that matters most, and Oregon checks the football box currently but not enough secondary ones. Which leaves Washington — which doesn’t knock any single measurable out of the park but also isn’t chopped liver, and is one of the few remaining big media markets the P12 possesses.
But, again, without ND signing up first I have a hard time seeing any of this mattering.
LikeLike
The Big 10 is arrogant. They aren’t going to add Stanford because Notre Dame wants them. And I don’t think ND cares about Stanford. They haven’t been playing them for that long. They would probably be indifferent vs. Cal or Stanford.
Now Stanford’s overall athletic program might be a plus. It is probably the top ranked university in the nation, but Cal is usually the top ranked public university and is more analogous to the Big 10 schools.
Notre Dame’s partner will be chosen for strategic location and value to the networks. This other stuff is just a tiebreak.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Big 10 is arrogant.”
Yes.
“They aren’t going to add Stanford because Notre Dame wants them.”
They wouldn’t add Boise State because ND asked, but Stanford? I think they would. It’s not like the B10 doesn’t like Stanford, they just don’t bring quite enough value on their own.
“And I don’t think ND cares about Stanford. They haven’t been playing them for that long. They would probably be indifferent vs. Cal or Stanford.”
Agreed. It’s not a rivalry, it a way to play in CA every year and SF every other year. I do think they’d slightly prefer Stanford, but not enough to make a fuss.
“Now Stanford’s overall athletic program might be a plus. It is probably the top ranked university in the nation, but Cal is usually the top ranked public university and is more analogous to the Big 10 schools.”
Most of them, yes. But NW and ND would disagree. And the Stanford brand is much better in football than Cal’s.
“Notre Dame’s partner will be chosen for strategic location and value to the networks. This other stuff is just a tiebreak.”
But Stanford is equal to, or better than, Cal and all the other options (except maybe UW) for those things, too. That’s why “appeasing” ND wouldn’t be a stretch – they were the #1 or #2 choice for a partner anyway.
LikeLike
They aren’t going to add Stanford because Notre Dame wants them.
Frank the Tank said the Big Ten would add Sam Houston State if Notre Dame wanted them. That was meant to be a laugh line, but I think the core truth is that ND plus anybody is a huge positive.
With that said, if ND has gotten over the hump to join a conference, I seriously doubt they would say it has to be Stanford or we are not coming.
LikeLike
The more I look, the more UW looks attractive. Seattle/WA is growing fast and has plenty of B10 alums. UW also isn’t a slouch on the football field or on TV.
LikeLike
It’s never about travel partners. Travel partners isn’t the issue when you’re making $100 million per school.
It’s about how you make the most money; control the most markets; control the most TV share at later times of day to give full national coverage from noon to night.
Washington/Stanford is arguably the 2 best fitting teams there to get you into the other 2 large markets on the West Coast and the ND-Stanford relationship is worth keeping.
Both fit academically, and athletically they’ve been to the most Rose Bowls other than USC, UCLA out of the Pac-12. Both can operate at a high level for long historical periods of time.
Also makes it easier to cut the Pac-12 out of the Rose Bowl if you take Washington, Stanford as well. Having the 4 teams that have played most of the Rose Bowls out of the Pac-12 side makes it easy to just say, you only need the Big Ten to preserve the Rose Bowl tradition.
LikeLike
z33k: “Washington/Stanford is arguably the 2 best fitting teams there to get you into the other 2 large markets on the West Coast and the ND-Stanford relationship is worth keeping.”
That flat-out is not true. It is a fantasy. Stanford and Cal have pissant fan bases. Look at the data. USC Fresno State and Oregon totally dwarf the Stanford/Cal fan bases in California.
https://la.curbed.com/2014/10/6/10039178/this-map-shows-all-of-socal-except-westwood-is-usc-territory
LikeLike
Nobody is doubting the size of USC’s fan base, but it’s already on board. There really isn’t any data to show that USC is all that popular in SF. z33k particularly mentioned getting the 2 big western markets left – SF and Seattle. I think everyone would agree UW is the school to bring Seattle.
When using that map to support your case, remember that physical space is different from the number of people. Land doesn’t watch TV or buy products.
https://archive.nytimes.com/thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
Stanford has a smaller fan base, and it is dispersed nationally. Cal’s is decent sized, at least when they play well. The NY Times had Cal with the #3 fan base in the P12, larger than UW’s and UO’s.
Note they estimate Fresno’s fan base to be much smaller than Stanford’s, it just covers a lot more area that is less densely populated.
LikeLike
UW helps with time zone travel, which can be important for midweek games. There is also familiarity for the fans.
LikeLike
z33k,
Warren already said nobody else is joining before the current TV deal is finalized, so we know they aren’t coming now. If you really want them, adding them now would make the most sense.
I agree the next best timing is to add them when the CFP money jumps up, as it can smooth out any dilution. But they may have been forced to sign a GOR by then.
The third option is waiting for ND, which may not be an option until the ACC is also available.
If the B10 thinks ND will come, then 3 more from the west coast could make sense. 1 team can play 8 or 10 games for a while.
I agree that UW and Stanford hit the major markets. I don’t see much additional value in Cal beyond academics, but maybe Stanford and UCLA want them plus it appeases Newsom. UO has its own issues, and the rest of the P12 choices (UU, CU, ASU, UA) aren’t worth it.
LikeLike
I’ve been wondering the past couple of weeks as to whether Oregon would ever push to re-absorb OHSU (state’s medical school which spun out of UOregon in the 70s) for the prestige factor of being a comprehensive university (not just the AAU issue).
Rutgers absorbed NJ’s medical school a couple years ago and effectively added around $200 million in annual research to its numbers (now around $700 million a year).
Phil Knight has given a lot of money over the years to OHSU for various research initiatives, mainly cancer (around $600 million or so).
Not just about staying AAU, but prestige wise would probably raise the university’s profile if they have a prominent medical school. Something to think about but who knows whether they’d do it.
Certainly not just to get into the Big Ten, but having a top medical school (which is what OHSU is) attached to the University of Oregon brand would be a boost prestige-wise in the circles where that matters.
LikeLike
I suspect they never would have done that if the AAU had been kicking out schools in the 1970s.
LikeLike
And the state spun OHSU off less than a decade after UO joined the AAU.
LikeLike
AAU membership is by location, not system (why U. California has 7 of the 65 members). OHSU is in Portland, slightly over 100 miles from the University of Oregon Eugene campus. Same problem Nebraska had with the medical school in Omaha. Rutgers main campus and medical school are about 25 miles apart in same metro area. Not sure the consolidation will be recognized by the AAU in Oregon’s case.
LikeLike
That’s true for university systems that have separate campus units organized as separate universities.
Oregon doesn’t have separated units though, so I’m not sure that would apply.
Private schools are like that such as Northwestern which includes its downtown Chicago graduate campus as part of the university.
If Oregon was to absorb OHSU again, it probably wouldn’t be counted as a separate unit.
LikeLike
You are right on the distance issue though so who knows; maybe AAU would view it as pretty ridiculous (and very different from the Rutgers/Northwestern style of examples).
LikeLike
No one has ever suggested that the AAU requires all of a university’s facilities to be within a radius of X miles. The spread-out campus at Rutgers is one university under one management. The various campuses of the U. California system are not. They share a common board of elected politicians, but otherwise the U. California schools are separately run: a U.C. Merced grad cannot say they went to Berkeley.
I don’t think the AAU ever told Nebraska that if it incorporated the medical school, it wouldn’t “count.” They just couldn’t get it done politically.
LikeLike
Yeah the Nebraska issue (when their leadership tried to push that they were affiliated with a medical school) was that the University of Nebraska Medical Center is a part of the University of Nebraska system as is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
But they’re organized separately under the system.
I would assume that any merger would bring OHSU into Oregon as a part of the single university just as a Portland medical campus.
Obviously, this is perhaps very unlikely due to all the politics that would likely come to play and the fact that OHSU itself has a great brand in medicine and may not want anything to do with UO.
The Rutgers situation was completely different where there were important politicians in favor of it.
LikeLike
Little8, Kansas counts their medical school in Kansas City. I believe schools can count off campus medical schools so long as they’re part of the same institution. By contrast, for example, the University of Missouri has a medical school in Kansas City and an engineering school in Rolla and doesn’t count either. But as I understand it, technically they could if the UM-Columbia campus absorbed the UM-KC and UM-Rolla campuses.
LikeLike
Those are totally different comprehensive universities Andy. That is not analogous at all. Its not like a stand alone medical school.
LikeLike
They’re smaller branches of the University of Missouri system. As I understand it, they discussed merging those under the University of Missouri-Columbia, and they could have counted, but the leadership determined it wasn’t worth the trouble. Yes, Kansas’s KC medical school is a medical school only campus, but it is not in Lawrence. So it seems that it is similar to Oregon and Nebraska, except Kansas keeps theirs under the Lawrence umbrella so they get to count it in their numbers.
LikeLike
Rutgers merged with two NJ medical schools in order to end massive corruption at the med schools. UMDNJ (medicine and dentistry) in Newark had multiple people on the payroll with no show jobs at $200 K per year, or more.
Years ago the med school in New Brunswick was part of RU, until politicians realized that much more graft would be available with independent med schools. For years the NJ newspapers wrote stories about the corruption at the medical/dental schools. Of course the NJ politicians did not much care until a couple of stories broke that embarrassed even them and the merger became a necessity.
Robert Barchi was brought in as pres of RU in 2012 for no reason other than to implement the merger, which took more than 5 years. The merger consolidated RU in New Brunswick, with branches in Newark and Camden (including merger of two law schools), as well as the medical schools. It was a massive undertaking and by all accounts Barchi did a very good job with his one task.
Barchi was one of those guys who probably could not identify a football placed next to a basketball and a baseball. He had zero interest in sports, even though RU joined the B1G during his term. Barchi was hired for one thing and he did it well.
The new and current RU pres Jonathan Holloway played football at Stanford and was Provost at Northwestern, so he knows and cares about sports.
By the way, there have been a couple of mentions of RU as bottom feeder, etc., in the B1G. They are thrilled to be a bottom feeder, though planning on improving in football. The other sports have generally been upgraded
RU has the three most important things in real estate, location, location, and location. Works for college conferences also.
LikeLike
I mean, Rutgers and Maryland being in the Big Ten is a huge attraction to Notre Dame as well; it’s not just about attraction to the Big Ten and the 11 schools pre-Nebraska.
As you said it, “location, location, location.”
Every time they mention the Big Ten being in NYC or on the East Coast, that’s the value proposition that Rutgers brings beyond just fitting in as a large research institution.
Notre Dame would not ever join an 11 team Big Ten with 0 coastal presence. That’s pretty easy to say. Obviously that’s changed at 16 in a big way with 4 universities in the largest cities on the coasts.
And given all the future members for the Big Ten are going to be on the East or West Coast, that only grows in the future.
LikeLike
(Of course excepting ND to that last part).
LikeLike
Bernie,
RU started off horribly in almost all sports since they were effectively moving up from a lower level. RU finished last in just about every sport for several years. But now many of the smaller sports have become typical B10 teams. That makes a difference in how RU is viewed.
Football will always be the slowest to improve because of the roster and staff size, money, and competition. Unfortunately, it’s also the main focus of fans. Schiano is a competent coach and has gotten rapid improvement. If he can just return RU to mediocre in the B10, the view of their addition will change considerably. Being shut out 4 times in 2016 and 2019, losing 78-0, 58-0, 56-0, and 52-0 to OSU and UM (among other blow outs), losing 48-7 to UMD, those things just killed RU’s image. If they can be competitive in their losses and makes some bowl games, they’ll become a typical bottom half B10 team (IU, PU, IL, etc.). That’s really all most B10 fans want.
LikeLike
They’ll probably get a boost from not having Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State on the schedule every year.
They only have 2 wins against the 4 teams (including Penn State with those 3 despite likelihood of permanent Penn State-Rutgers game).
But you’re right, rest of their programs are competitive in the Big Ten now and making postseason play in a lot of sports like both basketball teams and a bunch of the others.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34312585/commissioner-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-steady-usc-ucla-departures
Kliavkoff was optimistic and a little aggressive today.
“We are bullish about the Pac-12’s future and our opportunities for long-term growth, stability and success,” Kliavkoff said at Pac-12 media day Friday. “Our conference boasts 10 of the most iconic and innovative brands in all of sports, all-around excellence in academics and athletics, and a half-dozen of the most valuable markets in this country.”
Only 10, huh? Pretty sure you have 12 members for the next 2 years.
Asked about potentially adding Pac-12 schools earlier this month, the Big 12’s Brett Yormark said the conference is “open for business.”
That didn’t sit well with Kliavkoff, who pointed to the unspecified projected value of the Pac-12 media rights compared to the Big 12 and dismissed the idea that the Big 12 is a more desirable location.
“With respect to the Big 12 being ‘open for business,'” Kliavkoff said, “I appreciate that. We haven’t decided if we’re going shopping there yet or not.”
Kliavkoff’s jab came during a question-and-answer session in which he spoke of his desire for more collegiality among his peers. But he also wasn’t about to let what was being said elsewhere go unanswered.
“I’ve been spending four weeks trying to defend against grenades that have been lobbed in from every corner of the Big 12, trying to destabilize our remaining conference,” Kliavkoff said. “And I understand why they’re doing it. When you look at the relative media value between the two conferences, I get it. I get why they’re scared. I get why they’re trying to destabilize us, but I was just tired of that.”
Shots fired.
Asked about the possibility the schools could reverse course and remain in the Pac-12, Kliavkoff did not rule that out for UCLA, which has faced public criticism from California Gov. Gavin Newsom for its handling of the defection.
“I’d say UCLA is in really difficult position. There are a lot of constituents related to UCLA who are very, very, very unhappy with the decision,” Kliavkoff said. “Student-athletes, the families of student-athletes, the faculty, the staff, politicians, the fans, the alumni, there’s a lot of really, really upset people with that decision and there’s a hearing coming up [with the UC board of regents] about that decision.
“I can’t give you a percentage chance. I think it’s unlikely, but if they came back, we would welcome them back.”
That seems like wishful thinking.
LikeLike
I love that the Pac-12 gets their two most valuable schools taken from their “Alliance” partner and Rose Bowl pal the B1G, and he picks a fight with the B-12.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
He can’t do anything about the B10 other than complain, but that doesn’t mean he has to take crap from another conference arguably in the same if not worse position. Pac12 and Big12 are both in posturing-to-hopefully-project-strength mode.
LikeLike
Alan: “I love that the Pac-12 gets their two most valuable schools taken from their “Alliance” partner and Rose Bowl pal the B1G, and he picks a fight with the B-12.”
Well, the B12 now has a strong stake right in the geographical center of P12 country – BYU. He knows that he can’t stop additional deflections to the Big Ten but he is preparing for some sumo wrestling with the B12 over the Four Corners schools.
LikeLike
Colin – I know the Pac can’t do anything about it, but I still think its funny and his anger is misdirected. Even though this is a predominantly B1G board, you must be able to see the irony of his statement.
Reminds me of the old joke around the SEC that Alabama gets caught red-handed cheating and the NCAA puts Mississippi State on probation.
LikeLike
Alan,
I’d agree if the B12 wasn’t doing things that deserved his ire. All these leaks about the 4 corners schools supposedly talking to the B12 (the schools deny it), the low TV deal numbers (no legitimate national reporters backing up those lowball numbers), the instability in the P12, etc.
It’s an active and ongoing campaign to try to get P12 schools to panic and desert the P12 for the B12 before the B12 has to start media negotiations. The B12 is still upset that the P12 left them hanging in the breeze last year and that some of the P12 school made some unflattering comments about B12 schools. This is retaliation by them.
Plus, being media day, he had to comment out optimistic and aggressive to set a tone nationally. He knows most people don’t follow this stuff in detail, and a good soundbite like that will make the P12 look powerful to the casual fans and help reduce the heat.
If anything was ironic, it was him saying he wished his peers were more collegial and then attacking the B12.
LikeLike
1. We all know everybody is talking to everybody. And Arizona hasn’t denied it.
2. Wilner clearly believes those low TV numbers from his reports.
3. Warren is the only one trying to get the Pac to panic.
So you think the Big 12 is responsible for every rumor put out by MHVer3, Greg Swaim and the Dude of WV? Is the Big 10 responsible for every rumor put out by Greg Flugaur (the dude of Minnesota)? How about all the bad-mouthing of the Big 12 by Mandel and Carrazano who are known Pac 12 mouthpieces? How about the Colorado admin calling the Big 12 JCs?
The Pac 12 is just full of itself.
LikeLike
bullet,
“1. We all know everybody is talking to everybody. And Arizona hasn’t denied it.”
No, I mean the ones saying the schools were officially talking with the B12. That’s a huge step up from the normal back and forth.
“2. Wilner clearly believes those low TV numbers from his reports.”
Low, yes. I’m talking the specific numbers some people stated. I’ve only seen ranges or ballparks from legitimate national reporters.
“3. Warren is the only one trying to get the Pac to panic.”
He doesn’t need them to panic. That won’t change any decisions about joining the B10.
“So you think the Big 12 is responsible for every rumor put out by MHVer3, Greg Swaim and the Dude of WV?”
I think B12 people are leaking certain things to them to get them out there, yes.
“Is the Big 10 responsible for every rumor put out by Greg Flugaur (the dude of Minnesota)?”
He has a source, and all sources are tools top be used.
“How about all the bad-mouthing of the Big 12 by Mandel and Carrazano who are known Pac 12 mouthpieces?”
Mandel is a national reporter with a midwestern background. He may have P12 sources, I don’t know. Just because you disagree with his opinions doesn’t mean he’s biased or being influenced. Frank says many of the same things here and elsewhere. Reasonable people can believe the P12 is more valuable than the B12.
We know Canzano has OrSU sources among others, and like all reporters he gets used by his sources sometimes. You know that when you read his work and filter it that way. I mostly focus on quotes he gets, and info from his named sources.
“How about the Colorado admin calling the Big 12 JCs?”
What about it? I can believe many of the P12 academics feel that way (admin and faculty) with UT being out. It’s insulting, but shouldn’t be destabilizing. If the B12 wanted to talk back about that, nobody would have an issue with them doing so. So why can’t the P12 respond to what they perceive as a destabilization campaign?
LikeLike
None of this directed at the Pac 12 has come from the mouths of Big 12 people. On the other hand, the Pac has personally been trash talking the Big 12. It just smells of desperation, condescension and a lack of class.
LikeLike
bullet,
If you only mean it hasn’t come directly from the mouths of B12 folks, I mostly agree (“open for business”?). But if you think nobody from the B12 has been leaking comments to reporters, bloggers and/or twitterers because they want them out there, I can’t agree.
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2022/07/23/colorado-administration-views-the-big-12-as-a-juco-league-denver-post-columnist/
You brought up the JUCO comment. As far as I can see, that was a columnist in Denver who said that.
Denver Post columnist Sean Keeler joined SicEm365 radio and talked about how the biggest issue in Colorado returning to the Big 12 isn’t the fan base, but rather the administration.
Keeler said, “I would say the fan base would be 60-40 Big 12, and maybe even higher. They were burned. They feel duped by the Pac-12.”
Keeler went on to add, “Here’s the kicker, I think the administration is 70-30 Pac-12. They want the money, they want the comfort, they want the politics, they want the caviar, they want the prestige, air quotes. The administration at CU views the Big 12 as a JUCO league. They don’t want to be in that. And the fans absolutely do.”
He’s not quoting anyone, he’s giving an opinion. And he is very much in the CU should return to the B12 camp, so you should filter his words. I could believe Stanford or others think that way about the B12, but I’d be surprised if someone official said something that insulting.
You follow the B12 more closely than I do. Where there actual quotes from official P12 people last year? I’m not defending anyone in power insulting other schools in public.
LikeLike
Alan,
It is fair for him to be upset at the media campaign from B12 sources trying to destabilize the P12. Plus, that’s an ongoing battle and one he needs to win.
He’s also upset at the B10, but the B10 just took advantage of an opportunity offered to them. The B10 could’ve taken a lot more than 2 schools. He did say he wished his colleagues were more collegial. Who do you think that was aimed at?
LikeLike
The real sabotage last week came from the B1G. The list of candidates that was floated gives 4 PAC schools reasons to vote against any long GOR or increase in exit penalties (only 3 are required). It also tells the 4 corners schools not to lose that B12 phone # since none of them are on the list.
Anything from the B12 is just sniping. Unless the PAC money is very low no one is leaving the PAC unless the B1G takes a third school. Even one more might cause the conference to collapse. The leaked B1G list is likely to prevent the PAC from creating the high exit fees of the B12/ACC or long GOR of the ACC to create barriers to further defections. After losing half of its original membership the B12 is stable since it has no school left that either the SEC or B1G wants.
LikeLike
Did the B10 float that? Some have speculated that. It could’ve been the B12 for all I know.
I am willing to guess that Kliavkoff felt he had good justification for saying the B12 have been throwing grenades for a month. If he thought the B10 was doing it, he would’ve also thrown them under the bus.
LikeLike
There’s not a lot he can say or do about the B10. He’s not going to be able to guarantee that no Pac team would join the B10, for instance (while he probably could about the B12).
LikeLike
It came out during Big 10 media days, so yes. In the article its right after Warren talks about schools being additive.
LikeLike
bullet,
It’s all a blur to me at this point. I can’t remember what came out when. That’s why I asked.
Warren outright denied that the B10 was currently targeting anyone during media days. That seems like a relatively good thing to me. There were rumors and reports since 7/1 that the B10 was adding other P12 schools. I don’t think the B10 needed to float that concept. And the rumors only said they were considering some certain schools. Everyone knows they all consider all the other schools all the time.
LikeLike
Only 10, huh? Pretty sure you have 12 members for the next 2 years.
Assuming he means the continuing 10, what exactly is iconic and innovative about Oregon State?
LikeLike
Best possible Big XII that is attainable – AZ, ASU, Utah, BYU, Boise St, UNLV, Colorado, AFA, OK State, TX Tech, Iowa St, Houston, K St, Kansas, TCU, Baylor.
LikeLike
“Best possible” in what way? What’s the metric, and how are you measuring it?
It’s almost 1500 miles from Boise to Houston and almost 1200 from Phoenix to Ames, so it’s not super compact though they did drop some outliers.
In terms of football you dropped some better programs (WV, UC) to keep ISU and add AFA (who don’t want to be in a P5 conference).
LikeLike
I don’t know what “attainable” means, but there is no way the Big XII is dropping Cincinnati, its only continuing member that ever made a College Football Playoff. And I certainly believe the Big XII values UCF and WV more than it values several others that you have listed.
LikeLike
OrSU are the only Beavers in I-A.
WSU has their streak of flag appearances on College Gameday and their passing game.
LikeLike
Answer to the trivia question: what school is the only one to have a Heisman winner play in a final four?
LikeLike
Terry Baker Oregon State
LikeLike
Terry Baker edging out Jerry Stovall in 1962 is the biggest Heisman travesty EVER!
LikeLike
Steve Spurrier edging out Bob Griese in 1966 is the biggest Heisman travesty ever!
LikeLike
I’ll say Paul Hornung in 1957. He won for being ND’s QB. No 2-8 QB should win without ridiculously good stats.
1. Paul Hornung (QB @ ND) – 59/111 (53%), 917 yds, 13 INT, 3 TD (also 4 TD rush)
2. Johnny Majors (RB @ TN) – 549 yds, 5.1 ypc, 7 TD
3. Tommy McDonald (RB @ OU) – 853 yds, 7.2 ypc, 12 TD (also 4 TD rec and 3 TD thrown)
4. Jerry Tubbs (OL @ OU)
5. Jim Brown (RB @ SU) – 986 yds, 6.2 ypc, 13 TD
ND went 2-8. TN went 10-1. OU went 10-0. SU went 7-2. Note that the top 4 were white.
I realize QB stats were much worse back then, but John Brodie was the QB for stats (Stanford).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/34313337/under-armour-pay-ucla-675m-settlement-termination-apparel-sponsorship-deal
Well, here’s another piece of UCLA’s debt issue solved. Underarmour will pay them $67.5M for ditching the remainder of their 15-yr $280M apparel deal. UCLA got a 6-yr deal worth $46.5 from Nike to replace it.
LikeLike
Yeah, UCLA financial picture clears up pretty quick with that settlement to go along with Big Ten revenue distributions and their next apparel deal which should be closer to market value.
LikeLike
z33k: “Yeah, UCLA financial picture clears up pretty quick with that settlement to go along with Big Ten revenue distributions and their next apparel deal which should be closer to market value.”
I believe it’s far less about any current financial shortcomings than the long-term outlook within each conference. Consider Big Ten money-per-school over the next 10-20 years vs P-10/12 money. If USC/UCLA had the option to jump to the B10, they’d be financially wacko not to do so.
LikeLike
Agree for sure, but I just mean their short-term deficits of the past couple of years.
Should be able to get to the positive pretty quickly and clear out the debts.
You’re right in the long-term sense; we’re approaching a scenario where the 10 year difference is $500 million give or take, that starts to get pretty crazy.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/29/stanford-ad-no-formal-overture-from-big-ten-other-conferences-bernard-muir-pac-12-media-days
Stanford’s AD gave a non-denial denial of realignment discussions. We all know formal overtures don’t happen until everyone is agreed, and then the school has to reach out first.
“We have not had any formal overture from another conference,” Muir said, via ESPN’s Pete Thamel.
LikeLike
‘From’ another conference? No. ‘To’ another conference? Absolutely.
LikeLike
There was a Big 10 source saying every P5 not in the SEC had contacted them.
LikeLike
“Formal” is doing a lot of work right there.
Like sure the Big Ten hasn’t asked anybody to submit an application.
But we all know everyone is talking to everyone at different levels of seriousness, especially in the Pac-12 which is near its GoR ending and has schools other conferences might want.
LikeLike
Adam Rittenberg interviewed Warren recently and, regarding the upcoming media.rights deal, Warren said he wanted people to look back at this deal in twenty years and say, “That was the deal that changed everything in college sports ” Rittenberg believes (and I concur) that this implies a streamer is likely involved.
LikeLike
Rittenberg also recently said in an interview he expects the Big Ten media deal to be done August 15th and then that there would be a “flurry of further expansion” shortly after that.
https://twitter.com/Genetics56/status/1553122812633776129
LikeLike
Interesting. This isn’t the interview I heard. That one was an ESPN podcast.
LikeLike
I don’t think that implies anything. Rittenberg and you are inferring that – big difference.
There are many ways to “change everything” and exclusive streaming is just one of them. Some others: huge valuation jump, 3+ media partners, getting ND to join, exclusive streaming, co-streaming all games, flex scheduling, some unique legal structure, more weeknights, noon to midnight games from 1 conference, international rights, ….
It could be any of those, or something else. Some amount of streaming will be involved, but we don’t know if it will be exclusive or co-streaming, or how much.
LikeLike
Please explain how my comment that “streaming is likely involved” somehow morphed into “exclusive streaming”, which NO ONE claimed I said Warrens’s comments implied streaming. You said it didn’t imply any such thing, then you turn around are claim “streaming will be involved”. Um….what? Your contrarian shtick has you contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next.
LikeLike
I’m saying that what Warren said didn’t imply streaming at all. Rittenberg inferred it, and so did you. It could have been about something else, and I even gave examples.
I talked about exclusive streaming because BTN already “streams” games, so co-streaming wouldn’t really be anything new. A common streamer (Apple, Amazon, Peacock, …) would just be another network, unless they had exclusive streaming. And when most people say “a streamer,” they don’t mean BTN.
Please explain how my comment that “streaming is likely involved” somehow morphed into “exclusive streaming”, which NO ONE claimed I said Warrens’s comments implied streaming.
That’s not quite correct. You said “a streamer” would be involved, not streaming. That eliminates things like BTN, and sounds more like Apple/Amazon or Peacock than another network also co-streaming.
“Rittenberg believes (and I concur) that this implies a streamer is likely involved.”
I said we all have discussed that some level of streaming (at the least co-streaming) would be part of this new deal. BTN already does it so the question is only how much of it and where. People disagree on whether there will be exclusive streaming.
LikeLike
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cruel-reality-of-sports-trust-is-shattered/id1477531279?i=1000571487696
This podcast? Rittenberg and Andrea Adelson talking after B10 media days.
LikeLike
Warren also told him that when he interviewed for the job, and the issue of expansion came up, he expressed an interest in the West Coast, which had clearly not been (seriously) considered before. Whether USC/UCLA sought membership solely of their own volition or Warren sent out feelers, we’ll never know, but Rittenberg mentioned several times that he intends to take the B1G in a new direction, literally and figuratively. That is, if they renew his contract. I’m getting some Iger/Chapek vibes regarding his relationship with the prior regime.
LikeLike
If I am the Big 12 I think about negotiating with ESPN and Fox for the early release of OU and Texas in 2024 and in exchange want access to the open market one year early. This would position the league to be up at the same time as the PAC. Certainly ESPN would want this for the SEC and I think Fox would be interested as they seem have an interest in the Big 12 going forward and not the PAC. If more PAC teams are offered by the Big Ten that league folds anyway but the four corners schools will have an economic interest to leave.
LikeLike
I think Fox would be hard to convince, and maybe ESPN too. Fox would miss out on UT and OU games. ESPN gets UT and OU games much cheaper now than they will in the SEC. I think they lose money by letting them move early.
I don’t even think it’s good for the B12. They’d lose a year of games against UT and OU. Those games get them national exposure, ticket sales, and closer to the prime recruiting grounds.
And if the B12 is available, Fox has to outbid competitors. Why do that a year earlier than they need to?
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34313921/pac-12-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-bullish-expanded-college-football-playoff-potentially-2025
Kliavkoff thinks that the CFP will not only expand, but might still do so before the current deal ends. I’m doubtful they can get the details figured out soon enough and get the media deal figured out to everyone’s satisfaction.
“I’m really confident that we’re going to expand the College Football Playoff,” Kliavkoff told ESPN. “It actually wouldn’t surprise me once we agree on the format, if it happens before the end of the current term. Once you agree to the format, why wouldn’t you?”
Kliavkoff’s comments are counter to the notion populated by the College Football Playoff board of managers in February that the format would not expand until a new format is put in place for the 2026 season. Others expressed skepticism at the timeline, considering that an expansion decision would need to be made in the upcoming months. The next CFP meeting is in mid-August via Zoom, sources told ESPN, and there’s another planned a month later.
Kliavkoff’s optimism is based on the tenor of the most recent CFP meeting in Park City, Utah, last month. “[It was] the most productive CFP meeting I’ve been in. I’m incredibly optimistic that we’re actually going to get there.”
Can that lead to a new format before the end of the current contract? That would require unanimous approval, which is always tricky in a room with so many dynamics and stakeholders.
“We’re closer than we ever have been to agreeing to a format,” Kliavkoff said. “The lack of agreement about a format held us back from doing it quickly, as opposed to slowly.
“I said it back when we originally met on this. Once you agree to a format, you can shoehorn that into the existing contract. If we agree on what it looks like past the existing contract, why wouldn’t you try and do it quicker?”
In the fall, there was discussion about expanding the playoff field as early as 2024 or 2025, but the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 ultimately voted against it in January and February for various reasons. In order for it to still happen before the current, 12-year contract expires after the 2025 season, CFP executive director Bill Hancock told ESPN, “many, many details would have to be worked out.”
“We’ll have to see,” Hancock said. “There’s a lot more talk ahead.” Hancock said the commissioners haven’t talked about playoff expansion since June and the presidents and chancellors haven’t discussed it since May.
“The board and the management committee will discuss the format when the time comes,” Hancock said. “I do feel like the commissioners were more open to change and collaborative when they met in June than they were in February.”
Hancock said the June meeting didn’t include any talk about a potential 16-team format, and the conversation was more philosophical than it was “in the weeds” about a format. The commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick initially liked the concept of rewarding the top four teams with a bye in the 12-team format — something that would be lost with a 16-team field.
Swarbrick didn’t rule out the possibility of a sped-up timeline for a new CFP, but said it would be difficult to expand the field during the current contract.
“I think the calendar is the obstacle,” Swarbrick said. “I can see the intent being there, but it’s not easy. It’s so dependent on the size of the playoff.”
Swarbrick was one of the authors of the original 12-team proposal, along with SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, outgoing Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby and Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson. Swarbrick said the reason they favored 12 over 16 was because “we loved the byes.”
“We loved how that rewarded teams,” he said, adding that any discussions he’s been a part of regarding a 16-team field to this point have been “very conceptual.”
Sankey was not immediately available for comment.
Kliavkoff added that he hasn’t dove into the details on the impact of television contracts. One of the likely steps in the next playoff, as it evolved from four teams, will be multiple television partners. Right now, ESPN owns all the rights to the four-team playoff. Fox would be the expected favorite to join ESPN in the bidding, as the CFP aims to potentially model its postseason after the NFL’s and have multiple rights holders.
What that formally looks like still hasn’t been decided, but the notion of a potential 16-game playoff continues to be perpetuated. Kliavkoff mentioned the dynamic in the room changing now that Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren is expected to tamp down his demand for automatic qualifiers, one of the key stumbling blocks for the 12-team playoff. He also mentioned one of the ACC’s issues — a 365-day calendar review — is underway and likely to be resolved.
“I’m in favor of expanding the College Football Playoff,” Kliavkoff said. “I don’t have particular issues between 12 and 16. I understand the arguments for and against.”
He added: “It’ll be interesting now that I think Kevin is backing away from his demand for automatic qualifiers. I’m willing to go into the room and listen.”
That 16-team idea likely brings with it calendar issues, as Swarbrick mentioned, and the likely debate of whether leagues would potentially eliminate their conference title games in favor of that weekend being reserved for the first weekend of the playoff. That would likely require a lot of contractual gymnastics and financial accommodations for those whose league title games are worth the most money.
…
Kliavkoff said he plans to continue to stump for the Rose Bowl, even in the wake of the Big Ten poaching two of the Pac-12’s most valuable brands. The Rose Bowl has long been a contract between the Big Ten and Pac-12.
“Three hours every three years for the Rose Bowl,” Kliavkoff said. “We’re 100 percent committed. It’s important. It’s part of the history and tradition of college athletics. When we start throwing out traditions for money, that’s when we get ourselves in trouble. It’s not a big ask.”
LikeLike
Phillips won’t agree to this without a pound of flesh from ESPN.
LikeLike
I don’t see why the B10 would agree unless ESPN agrees to let other networks have some of the games. ESPN would have to think carefully about how to approach this.
Wouldn’t the ACC want the money? I don’t think they would have much leverage with ESPN – it’s a completely separate deal and ESPN doesn’t need the CFP to expand. I think the ACC would push harder over the revenue split formula. Presumably they’d want more money equally split between the P5 and less for having more at-larges. The SEC and B10 would be on the other side I think.
LikeLike
Since Andy likes rumors and bullet enjoys Greg Flugaur, here’s the latest from him. Also, his source told him this:
“August 15th to October 15th. This is your window of action. Maximum leverage for Notre Dame. New media contract can be and will be adjusted. Oregon, Washington & Stanford efforts in reaching out toward Big Ten since UCLA and USC announcements will turn into formal talks”.
LikeLike
No. I find MHVer3 amusing. He doesn’t take himself as seriously as the other “dudes.”. Flugaur is just kind of weird.
LikeLike
MHVer3 at least admits that he is 100% a pass through for any rumor he hears. He filters out nothing.
Flugaur is weird, but he has his alleged source and has been right a couple of times. He had USC to the B10 a long, long time before it happened for example.
LikeLike
Just for you, here’s a pair of conflicting rumors from him tonight. Which sounds better?
LikeLike
Lol as if the Big Ten will ever share the Rose Bowl with somebody other than the Pac-12.
If the Big Ten and Rose Bowl decide to drop the Pac-12, the Big Ten would probably take sole control over it and figure out what to do with it later.
LikeLike
I mean, of course ESPN would want the most valuable bowl with the most valuable conferences. That doesn’t mean the B10 or SEC or Rose Bowl want that. Just like the SEC doesn’t want the B10 tied into the Sugar Bowl.
I really don’t see the B10 or Rose agreeing to lock in the B12.
I’d prefer to see it stay B10/P12, but it may well get pulled into the CFP.
LikeLike
Huh? I’ve seen no indication that the SEC doesn’t want to tie the B10 to the Sugar Bowl. The SEC wanted the best opponent for the Sugar and made the calculation that B12 #1 at that time was going to be better than B10 #2.
Obviously, the facts on the ground have changed since then.
LikeLike
This matches up with a lot of other rumors I’ve seen lately. All the rumors are getting pretty similar.
The general end game is the Big Ten adds several Pac 12 schools and Notre Dame and goes to 20 (or possibly slightly more than 20). The SEC at some point adds several ACC schools and goes to 20. Then we have two super leagues that dominate college sports.
I don’t know if it will happen, but I’d say there’s a decent chance.
LikeLike
The general time window is obvious.
The B10 has openly said nothing more will happen until the new TV deal is signed, and everyone knows those discussions are about done. Multiple people have said it will be announced by Labor Day at the absolute latest, and probably before. So that sets the start.
ND is in the middle of negotiations now, and should know where they stand with NBC when the B10 announces their deal. That gives ND time to renegotiate for a better deal, or to tell NBC “no thanks.” And with the ACC GOR in place, the only available partner schools of interest are in the P12. I know Warren said the B10 could go to an odd number, but they’d at least consider options for a partner.
On the other end, the P12’s exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and Fox closes 8/4. Then everyone else needs some time to talk with the P12 so they can generally pick a best offer. Then you need a few weeks to finalize details of the contracts. So that puts the P12 signing a deal in September or maybe October. As they near that point, the P12 will need a new GOR.
So all of that sets an 8/15 – 10/15 sort of window where any realignment would have to happen. And I agree that ND would have leverage in that window, both with NBC and with the B10.
We all know the new contract would be adjusted for new additions. There is always a clause for that. What we don’t know is how much the newbies might get.
It’s mildly interesting that Cal wasn’t on his list. Neither were any of 4 corners schools some have suggested.
I will just point out that having a window for action does not mean there will be action. After everyone sees the B10’s new deal, maybe it’s not as impressive as some expect and nobody else wants to move. Or maybe NBC offers ND enough that they choose to stay independent (or other legal issues prevent it). Or maybe the P12 signs a GOR before the B10 gets a chance to take anyone else.
LikeLike
I doubt the Pac 12 schools involved sign a GOR until they know if they can get a spot in the Big Ten. I agree it will need to happen by October at the latest.
LikeLike
They’ll try to drag their feet, but if P12 negotiations go quickly they’ll be forced to either sign it or say no and hope the B10 comes through. Hopefully the B10 would be able to provide them back channel guidance on which path would be more prudent.
LikeLike
“They’ll try to drag their feet, but if P12 negotiations go quickly they’ll be forced to either sign it or say no and hope the B10 comes through”
TV deals don’t need a grant of rights to happen. The Pac 12 can’t force its members to sign one.
LikeLike
If they’re trying to get the P12N converted into something of value, they probably do need one. Apple and Amazon don’t want to commit to something to have the most valuable properties disappear 2 years into it. I’d think the networks would require one in order to get their best offer.
LikeLike
If you read more of his tweets he says part of the reason it would need to happen before mid October is because the remaining Pac 12 teams are going to be asked to sign GOR for their new TV deal (which would last 5 or 6 years), so they’d need to move before then or wait until 2028. So we should find out one way or another if these rumors are true pretty soon.
LikeLike
https://www.sacbee.com/sports/article263964966.html
More from Kliavkoff. The P12 still playing in LA would be interesting, but odd, outside of the Rose Bowl.
…
Kliavkoff understandably didn’t identify specific schools as candidates for expansion, although San Diego State has been repeatedly mentioned by others. He reiterated the league’s determination to keeping a football presence in the talent-rich, heavily populated end of California.
“Southern California is really important to us,” Kliavkoff said. “I think there are different ways of approaching staying part of Southern California. We may end up playing a lot of football games in LA.”
Kliavkoff expanded on those thoughts later to the AP: “LA is part of the Pac-12, even if UCLA and USC are not. We’re not giving up on LA. We play the Rose Bowl here and intend to play more games here. And we’re not giving up on that. We like it here.”
…
Kliavkoff speculated that the remaining Pac-12 schools are likely to get a significant boost in recruiting fertile Southern California in every sport except football, given that many Olympic sport athletes and their families aren’t going to want to fly off to the Midwest and East Coast regularly for competition.
He reiterated that the Pac-12 expects to keep its remaining members despite widespread speculation about both the Big 12 and the Big Ten looking to expand. …
LikeLike
Neutral site conference games in LA. Most of the remaining Pac schools don’t sell a lot of tickets for home games anyway (UW the exception) and they all have a lot of alums in SoCal.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/college/oregon/LongFormArticle/Everything-Oregon-AD-Rob-Mullens-said-at-Pac-12-Media-Day-190701279/
UO’s AD at media days.
On the Pac-12’s media deal and pending new deal
We’re going to gather as much information as we can. We get it’s a shifting landscape with not only the TV deals but the CFP landscape. I think what we’ve seen in the marketplace is that a shorter TV deal is better.
For us in general a shorter grant of rights is better for the long-term health of our program and for the league.
…
What does Oregon bring to the TV media deals?
You can pull the rating since 2012….one we are a national brand. Go look at the ratings from 2012. Even if you put in the years 16, 17, and 18, we were still one of the most powerful pulls in tv. Go look at it in any measurement. So while yes we might be in a smaller market or a smaller state our reach is far beyond Portland, Eugene, or the state of Oregon. We have a strong base in San Francisco, LA, and all over the country.
…
Pac-12 Network infrastructure and how it will help the league in media bidding
I think it’s a great piece. While the distribution of the Pac-12 networks was what we hoped or produced the revenue that we all wanted. It has produced great content. Part of that is the talent and part of that is the equipment. So yes, I think that’s going to be an asset
Revenue Sharing in the Pac-12 and if it could be equal
“When I first got into this league there was unequal sharing. TV was based on appearance and the level of appearance. The new deal, we were fortunate to get to a level where there was equal sharing and that was kind of the dream world. Things are changing and we have to be adaptive. That whole conversation may come full circle and be brought back open.
LikeLike
https://sicem365.com/s/12788/stop-the-propaganda-the-truth-about-big-12-vs-pac-12-tv-numbers
Baylor site takes a deep dive into the TV numbers starting with Mandel’s sample.
“…In conclusion the article from the Athletic was very misleading and drew conclusions that I do not think were supported by the data. The Big 12 and Pac 12 remnants drew similarly to each other in the television data I have and the new additions to the Big 12 figure to be a lot stronger than whatever the Pac 12 could add at this point.”
If you aren’t interested in reading the whole thing, his conclusions are based on:
Mandel’s sample included more of the Big 12’s bottom games.
Mandel’s sample included significantly higher % of network games for Pac 12 and significantly higher % of FS1 type games for Big 12.
Remaining 8 were comparable to Pac 10 on comparable networks and time slots.
Ratings for any potential MWC additions other than Boise are pretty low. Looking at those W of the Mississippi, its 1) Boise; big drop-2) Tulsa, 3) SMU, 4) Fresno, big drop. SDSU was #8. Dead last was UNLV.
LikeLike
Yes, as I’ve said repeatedly, some of these TV ratings analyses that are going around are total bunk. The one from Medium that Pat Forde referenced in SI was total garbage. All games on the SEC Network counted toward the average as zero viewers. That’s just totally lazy and ridiculous and inaccurate. A team that’s on the SEC Network frequently is going to come away with numbers that are less than half of what they actually were. I suspect calculating average tv ratings is actually kind of difficult, and the people doing it don’t seem to know what the hell they’re doing.
LikeLike
All of them are bad, in part because the raw data is bad. Some of their analytical methods and assumptions might be okay, but they don’t ever show them to be valid.
There’s no “correct” way to do the analysis (there are lots of incorrect ways), it depends on what you are trying to determine.
The bigger problem is that people read way too much into the results (authors and readers). Most of their numbers should have large error bars, so most of the teams cannot be truly distinguished. We can be very confident that ND draws more viewers than Western Kentucky. We know very little about how various P5 schools compare.
Besides, every team is one coach or star player away from winning a ton and drawing much better (or the other way). Past results are not a guarantee of future returns.
LikeLike
…as I’ve said repeatedly, some of these TV ratings analyses that are going around are total bunk.
Yet, they are the same numbers that TV executives will have to rely on when they decide how much to offer. It is just a question of how you slice the data.
LikeLike
Marc,
The TV folks have much more detailed information (ratings by demographic, etc.), but they are essentially working from the same data, yes. The key, as you note, is that they have much deeper and better analyses. They have people who do this for a living.
LikeLike
bullet,
To be clear, Mandel used the available data within his stipulations. That just happened to include more lower games for the B12 than the P10. He didn’t selectively take a subset of the data, it’s just that UT and OU combined played in more top B12 games than USC and UCLA did in the P12. That doesn’t make it propaganda as the headline claims, but it is certainly a valid criticism. I don’t think anyone ever claimed Mandel’s (or anyone else’s) viewership numbers were perfect. Being an article at a Baylor site doesn’t make this article seem particularly unbiased in its criticism, though, as the author starts with the opinion that Mandel’s results are wrong and sets out to prove it.
But there are 2 sides to every point. Mandel mentioned that having more FS1-type games in the data hurt the B12, and that P12 after dark helped the P12. After all this work, the author basically agrees.
The author has a different approach to analyzing the same data, and his approach has flaws too. He makes up data to balance the number of games on varying networks. That instantly kills any validity.
Then there’s his complaint about P5 OOC games.
In addition to the above the Pac 12 benefited the years of Mandel’s sample having many more games that are hosting some of the 16 highest rated Power 5 teams in my data like Notre Dame, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Michigan, and Michigan State during the years Mandel sampled.
The P12 schedules tougher OOC. We’ve been showing that for years on this blog. It’s perfectly valid to include that in this analysis because there’s no reason to expect OOC scheduling policies to change. Those games cost the P12 wins, so they get ranked lower which hurts their ratings later, so the B12 should equal that out. His analysis ignoring OOC games is biased to favor the B12.
Averaging games across networks and tv windows isn’t a very good way to do it and comparing schools with Z scores if time was permitting would be better.
That’s been done and linked on this blog, but bullet objected.
Later he starts picking only the top X games to compare schools, which is another huge red flag.
His final conclusions largely mirror Mandel’s to me – there are a few better brands (more in the P12 than the B12), then most of them are interchangeable with a couple cellar dwellers. I think people tried to read to much into Mandel’s results, and B12 fans overreacted in one direction while P12 fans went the other way. You just can’t get good results from the available data.
LikeLike
No. Mandel clearly claimed the Pac 10 was far superior to the nBig 12. Mandel claimed the Pac 12 had the top 6 schools and the others were ahead of 6 of the other 8.
The Baylor guy was just comparing top rated games like the Baylor-OSU ccg to demonstrate that Mandel’s conclusions didn’t make sense. He wasn’t using that as part of his comparison of schools.
And with the “made up” data, he was just looking at things a different way. Again, he wasn’t using that as part of his comparison of schools. He was demonstrating what happens when you continue out those slopes to explain why he was dropping the bottom games to make it comparable.
That’s something that has long been a flaw in many of the TV ratings averages. They compare the top 6 games from the ACC/Pac 12/SEC/Big 10 (because 3 or so games are on unrated conference networks) to the top 9 games in the Big 12. Having 3 extra low rated games is a drag on the Big 12 numbers. (In Mandel’s analysis where he culled out P2 games, it was about 1.5-2 extra low rated games).
If you have 3 games rated 0.2 on FS1 when the comparable games of the other schools are on an unrated conference network, that lowers the average of the school on FS1.
LikeLike
He really didn’t claim that much.
“Losing USC and UCLA is not as catastrophic as losing Oklahoma and Texas”
Everyone agrees this is true.
“Oregon and Washington draw well — but don’t forget Stanford”
Is it not fair to say many fans are surprised how well Stanford does? They always forget about the ND games, and also how successful Stanford has been over the years.
“Everyone but Arizona and Oregon State averaged at least 1.2 million viewers”
A pointless conclusion. I suspect you object more to his chart than these main points.
“Pac-12 After Dark is a sneaky-big advantage”
In some ways it may be. In other ways it isn’t.
“In conclusion, the Pac-12 may be in better shape than one would have assumed three weeks ago — provided it can keep the remaining 10 schools together.”
That seems reasonable.
Those are what I consider Mandel’s conclusions, and your article doesn’t argue any of them. It mostly argues the chart of results. Unfortunately, his results are equally flawed, just in different ways.
As for his chart, all he says about it is this:
[referring to the 1.2 million viewers mentioned above]
“That 1.2 million average is more than all but two of the eight Big 12 holdovers (Oklahoma State and TCU). Even Oklahoma State (1.28 million) would only rank seventh among the remaining Pac-12 schools. On the surface, that seems preposterous, given the Cowboys, who went 12-2 last season and 57-22 over those six seasons, are light years better on the field than the forlorn Buffaloes (33-42).”
He is literally just telling you what his chart says. He told you how he got there. Unless his math is wrong, take the numbers for what they are. You don’t have to agree that they represent the TRUTH of ratings.
He discredits his own results immediately by saying they look preposterous. Just agree with him that they do, and move on. I just don’t see why people get so worked up about it when you know that all these analyses are garbage.
LikeLike
Let’s say you take the Baylor guy’s results as 100% truth.
From the top (based on the top games for each school – supposed to eliminate network effects):
UO > OkSU
UW = BU
Stanford = TCU
WSU
UU = WV
TT > ASU > ISU
Cal
KSU = CU
UA = OrSU
…
KU
So the P12 is a little better at the top and less bad at the bottom.
P12 average = 1.81M (a little less than UU)
B12 average = 1.73M (a little above TT)
That’s with every B12-favorable assumption the Baylor guy could make in the analysis. With a mix of choices, the P12 probably comes out a little better. With all P12-favorable choices (what Mandel is accused of), the P12 does better.
But basically, it matches what many people have said and Navigate predicted – the ACC, B12, and P12 should all be about equally valuable. And the 4 corners schools from the P12 moving to the B12 doesn’t make much sense for either sided – there isn’t money to make there.
To me, the only use for these data is maybe for sorting within each conference. That reduces the conference-related effects of networks and windows and number of games.
B12: OkSU, BU, TCU, WV, TT, ISU, KSU, , , KU
P12: UO, UW, Stanford, WSU, UU, ASU, Cal, CU, UA, OrSU
Those seem plausible. The expected biggest brands did the best, and the smallest brands did the worst. There’s enough error in the data to scramble the middle schools around if anyone quibbles.
Mandel included more games, so his averages are lower.
From the top:
UO
Stanford*
UW
WSU
CU**
UU
OkSU = Cal
TCU = ASU
WV = BU*** = ISU
TT
UA
KSU
OrSU
…
KU
* Mandel included OOC games, so the ND games count
** Much higher in Mandel’s list
*** Much lower in Mandel’s list
The order is similar. A lot of the gaps are pretty small.
P12 average = 1.40M (a little less than UU)
B12 average = 0.97M (a little less than ISU, and a bit above TT)
So the schools near the averages stayed the same, too. He found a much larger difference between the averages, and that is probably not accurate. But the almost equal average is probably too close as well. Only using the top games skews the result.
I think there are several methods that could be used to improve both of their analyses, and my guess is that you’d get a result between these two with error bars large enough to include both of these analyses.
On top of all the other error sources, we really don’t know how fans nationally will respond to the changes in both conferences. Adding G5 schools could really hurt, it could help a little, or it might have no impact. Losing the 2 big brands could be devastating, or fans could just want to watch their conference games.
What would be interesting is to see how the national viewing heat map changes in neutral territory (obviously B12 will go up in Cincinnati, Orlando, SLC and Houston). What do neutral fans in SoCal, TX, and OK watch?
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-07-29/usc-president-carol-folt-pac-12-expansion
Apparently USC president Carol Folt stopped potential P12 expansion last summer. But she wasn’t the only president to feel that way, which is important. And if the presentation didn’t begin with why the P12 should consider expansion and what the potential gains were, shame on them. You won’t keep a president’s attention for an hour if they haven’t been sold on it first.
Go back to last summer. Put yourself in the shoes of a P12 president. Based on what we know about ratings and markets and valuations, and the importance of cultural fit, would you have expanded last summer? If so, with which schools? And how much revenue growth would you expect from that?
My guesses:
P12 options: KU, TT, TCU, OkSU
Unacceptable to P12: ISU (market), KSU (market, academics), Baylor (culture), WV (travel, market)
Of the 4 options, KU probably doesn’t bring enough value. The TX schools might be viable, but don’t really add revenue unless the P12N suddenly flourishes. OkSU is market- and academics-limited. In the end, I think they would’ve stayed at 12 anyway.
In other words, Folt saved everyone 45 minutes and future meetings. I’m sure the P12 sent out their slide deck for further review, and others would’ve pulled Folt back into a meeting if anything in those slides seemed powerful enough to change her mind.
Kliavkoff assembled a committee of three presidents and three athletic directors to decide whether or not to recommend expansion to the larger group. The group met on a Zoom call to go over a 20-slide deck. But the Pac-12 was only about 15 minutes into its hourlong presentation before USC President Carol Folt spoke up.
Folt told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it, according to multiple sources who were familiar with the call but not authorized to speak publicly because of the sensitivity of the subject.
“Carol shut it down,” one source said.
“She cooled the whole process,” another source said.
In late August, the Pac-12 announced it would not expand.
…
At the time, there were clear reasons USC would not want to expand. Within the Pac-12, USC’s leaders weren’t alone in expressing such reservations. Adding members would mean dividing the Pac-12’s already frustratingly small revenue pot among more hands. And, considering USC had not yet been invited to the College Football Playoff, adding more competition within its own conference would only make it harder to accomplish that elusive goal.
…
Not even a year into his tenure as Pac-12 Commissioner, Kliavkoff didn’t have much time to make his premier program happier. He was certainly in the process of trying. Removing the division tie-in to the league’s championship game would definitely help USC. But now the Trojans were gone, without any warning, as Kliavkoff was given no indication of the Trojans’ wanderlust.
USC coach Lincoln Riley said Friday the school’s openness to evaluating its future conference affiliation was discussed with him before he took the job in late November.
“I had a little bit of a heads up with it,” Riley said. “We had conversations when I took the job, not specifically about the Big Ten, not about an imminent move, but we knew we were going to have to monitor the landscape of what’s going on. You have to be on the forefront, and so I’m glad our people were progressive enough to seize what I think is going to be a great opportunity. I certainly understand the reasons behind it and fully support it.”
…
“Your initial reaction is one of personal emotion and what it means for your league and for my school,” [UO AD Rob] Mullens said, “but at the end of the day, what else were [USC and UCLA] supposed to do? They’re in a difficult position too. I try to step back from it.”
There had been internet rumors for years about USC’s wandering eye. Fans/alumni were unhappy and talking about independence. If the P12 was completely unaware of that, they should blame themselves. I believe the P12 when they say USC gave them assurances they would stay. USC may have even meant it at the time. USC and the B10 talked for a while in the fall/winter, then it cooled off before picking up again in May roughly. They probably honestly felt they were staying until June.
LikeLike
The Pac didn’t expand beyond 12 for the same reasons the Big XII didn’t expand beyond 10 when it still had Texas and Oklahoma. There were no big fish out there worth catching. Indeed, the schools the Pac would have added are probably among the set that the Big XII evaluated and rejected.
The math changed after the Big XII was cut down to eight. I don’t know what the math is for the Pac right now, but it is not super clear.
LikeLike
Agreed. I’m not sure if expansion makes financial sense for them, but it might if the newbies will take partial shares at first. It could make sense for stability purposes.
Most people feel SDSU is an obvious top candidate as it gets them back into SoCal. Then it seems like Boise, Fresno, SMU, UNLV, or UH/BYU would be the options (not counting current B12 members). I suppose Fresno makes the most sense out of that group to me as it brackets LA for them. But I worry about the financial side of it, and whether Cal et al would approve of 2 Cal State schools. On the bright side, it could make the P12 more appealing to the public since so few people can get into Cal.
If they could take B12 schools like TT and TCU, that’s different, but I don’t believe it will happen. I don’t see schools like SMU having the same impact, so expanding to TX wouldn’t make sense. And I doubt UH would prefer the P12 anyway. I don’t consider BYU a viable option for cultural/academic reasons, and UNLV is just a location/market grab with a terrible football program.
The P12 will definitely push for CFP expansion to get the revenue boost.
LikeLike
Brian: “UNLV is just a location/market grab with a terrible football program.”
Notre Dame plays BYU in UNLV’s stadium this year and two weeks later, ND plays UNLV in South Bend.
LikeLike
And?
ND is playing BYU at the Raiders’ stadium. UNLV also plays there. It’s not a neutral site game being played at UNLV.
UNLV is terrible, and has been for a long time, as I said. They have 4 winning seasons since 1986. There’s a big difference between playing an OOC game and adding them to the conference.
It would make more sense for the P12 to play their CCG there than to add UNLV.
They play at the NFL stadium because the Raiders paid them to shut theirs down. Typically playing off campus at an oversized NFL stadium goes poorly. They averaged less than 18,000 in attendance when playing on campus. It went all the way up to 22,400 their first year at the NFL stadium, with the help of ISU fans for their OOC game.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/news/college-football-insider-reveals-sec-presidents-getting-more-involved-in-cfp-expansion-college-football-playoff/
The SEC presidents want to get involved in CFP expansion discussions.
SEC presidents are tired of nothing being done about College Football Playoff expansion, and are readying to be more involved in conversations.
After letting others take the reins, conferences haven’t been able to agree upon moving on from a four-team tournament. During an appearance on The Paul Finebaum Show on SEC Network on Thursday, Ross Dellenger of Sports Illustrated revealed the fascinating news.
“I’ve found it a little odd .. the 16-team Playoff talk. Back at spring meetings — the SEC Spring Meetings in Destin, actually — I had a sit-down with Mark Keenum, the President of Mississippi State, who is the Chairman of the CFP. He told me then .. (a 16-team Playoff model) had been discussed by the Board of Presidents,” stated Dellenger. “They had discussed it a little back in the spring, and the Board of Presidents, Paul — they’re going to be a little bit more involved in this round of negotiations for the CFP expansion.
“I think they see that commissioners failed in coming to an agreement and agreeing. So they’re going to be more involved. There was a 16-team Playoff model that was kind of talked about among the presidents.”
However, don’t get your hopes up for a 16-team model just yet — Dellenger added that he doesn’t have the feelings the move will be popular with SEC presidents.
“I didn’t get the sense from Mark Keenum, I don’t get the sense from a lot of SEC people that they believe that is the right model,” added Dellenger. “I think a lot of them would tell you the ACC, the Big Ten and the Pac-12 — all three conferences that voted against the 12-team model — all had an issue with student-athlete health care, and there being too many games played in a 12-team model. Well, 16 is four more teams, and two more games.
“So, there’s been a little bit of a surprise that out of Big Ten Media Days there’s been this all of a kind of big show made about 16 teams. A lot of head scratching down south, I think.”
Yes, nothing speeds up negotiations quite like a committee full of academics. I’m sure the 65+ P5 presidents can hash something out in only a decade or two.
I do agree that the sudden prominence of the 16-team model is odd. Yes it would allow more access, but the 1st round logistics are a nightmare due to the NFL. The NFL has Saturday games as early as 12/17 (week 15 for them), so that’s also a problem. After the Army-Navy game weekend, the NFL will be using all the Saturdays as well (for night games).
This is what’s forcing the season to start in Week 0. If you do that, then rivalry week goes back to before Thanksgiving (when the B10 had it for a long time) and CCGs are played Thanksgiving weekend. The 1st weekend in December is Army-Navy, the 2nd is round 1. Then they need to get in a round of quarterfinals in mid-December with the NFL playing all weekend, or play the quarterfinals on NYD. NYD quarterfinals would push back the semifinals to when the title game week is now, and push the title game to mid-January. All 3 games would be played on weeknights, which hurts ratings. Mid-December quarterfinals would put the semifinals on NYD and keep the title game when it is now. Either way there are compromises.
With 12-teams, the only change is that round 1 is only 4 games, which is much easier to fit in.
LikeLike
Assuming you favor a playoff at all — which I know Brian does not — there is a certain logic to 12 that doesn’t exist for 16. From a sporting perspective, 12 is more than enough.
The move to 16 is simply an attempt to create a few more games they can make money from, not that that ever stopped them before. I suppose it does give 4 more teams the chance to put up a banner that says, “we were a playoff team,” even if their chances of winning it are remote.
LikeLike
I don’t support one, which makes me more objective about the format in some ways.
I agree 12 is more than enough. Nobody can make a serious argument that the #13 team was the best in the country, or even #10 to allow for some lower ranked champs getting in. CFB is more top heavy than that in any given season, even a crazy one like 2007.
The details of the 12 matter somewhat, but it would always be sufficient. The 6+6 model makes a lot of sense for everyone. The G5 would like more autobids, which is par of the push for 16. They want an 8+8 or even 10+6, but I don’t see it. It’s rare when even 2 G5 champs could make any sort of case for being the best team. The 6+6 guarantees one of them gets in, and leaves room for another if they get highly ranked.
I wish the CFP would add a rule that all undefeated teams will get in no matter what, so if multiple G5 champs go undefeated they don’t have to rely on the committee, but it won’t happen. I also wish they would eliminate the committee, or at least add computers as a counterbalance to the human bias, but that won’t happen either. The final rule I’d add that won’t happen is a cap on teams from any 1 conference (max = 4). If you can’t even be top 4 in your own conference, you have no legitimate complaints.
I see 2 big issues with 16. I’ve already described the scheduling issues. The other is that those 4 will just be more at-larges, none of which deserve the shot. It also removes the bye for the top 4 which is a proper reward for being at the top, especially since those 4 will likely have also played in a CCG so they’ve played an extra game already..
Many fans try to use NCAA championships at other levels or in other sports to argue for even more teams or more champs. But lower football levels play a shorter season, and I-A won’t do that. And other sports can play more than once per week so more games isn’t an issue. I also believe in player safety being a concern. College players shouldn’t be playing 17 games at the top level (faster, harder hitting, and NFL careers at stake).
LikeLike
Better to have Friday or Monday playoff games or compete against NFL regular season on Saturday than give up Thanksgiving for regular games. There are a lot of time slots on a lot of networks. Yes, you can get 8 exclusive slots for a 16 team playoff, but you give up a really good week.
LikeLike
Yeah, that is a good point.
It would make sense to have an 8-game first round Thanksgiving week, but not for it to be CCG week.
LikeLike
If they go to 12 or 16 teams, I’m sure this is the sort of stuff they’ll have to spend a long time discussing. TV will have one opinion, but the presidents might disagree. It just seems like this is the path they’re thinking about currently, given the 1 week earlier start to the season Warren mentioned.
I preferred the days of rivalry week being before Thanksgiving personally. I’m not arguing it makes financial sense, but it was much better for student attendance.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/news/george-kliavkoff-tense-relationship-between-pac-12-rival-conferences-amid-tampering-allegations-big-ten-12-brett-yormark-kevin-warren-realignment/
For those like bullet who felt Kliavkoff was off base about accusing the B12 of anything, does this change your mind?
Kliavkoff opened up about the relationship between the Pac-12 and rival conferences as the realignment dominoes continue to fall. USC and UCLA were the first dominoes to fall this summer, but reports then surfaced about a potential merger between the Big 12 and Pac-12. That isn’t happening.
But that hasn’t stopped the Big 12 from trying, according to Kliavkoff.
He told 247Sports’ Brandon Marcello Big 12 presidents have been messaging Pac-12 presidents about leaving for the Big 12 “as recently as yesterday.”
“The tampering continues. … I have a big collection of those messages,” Kliavkoff told Marcello.
LikeLike
“The tampering continues. … I have a big collection of those messages,” Kliavkoff told Marcello.
Does “tampering” have any legal meaning here? There is no rule I am aware of that someone in Conference X cannot suggest a switch to someone in Y.
It is pretty likely that the Big Ten did that when it took Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights would not have known that Maryland was moving, and they could not have expected an invitation without that.
LikeLike
Marc,
They could make a claim for tortious interference I suppose. I doubt that they’d win – people do have free speech. It would probably depend on what the messages say. If they are encouraging schools to break the GOR, that would be an issue. But suggesting they should leave when the GOR ends is fair game.
I think Kliavkoff said it better when he said they were trying to destabilize the P12. That’s a more accurate description, and it’s perfectly legal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference#:~:text=Tortious%20interference%20is%20a%20common,intentional%20interference%20with%20contractual%20relations.
tortious interference
Tortious interference is a common law tort allowing a claim for damages against a defendant who wrongfully interferes with the plaintiff’s contractual or business relationships.
See also intentional interference with contractual relations.
LikeLike
This happens all the time. That’s how realignment happens. President from conference A talks to their friend who is president at conference B. Those conversations are continuous.
LikeLike
Your prior complaint was that it wasn’t B12 people saying it. He claims to have documentation that they are. I agree that some of this happens all the time, but if he has that many it sounds more like an organized campaign. That’s a little different to me.
I’m not saying they’re doing anything horrible, just that Kliavkoff calling out the B12 for doing it seems justified if he has evidence.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-media-day-turns-into
Kliavkoff told me he expects the conference to “absolutely” have access to the playoff. Also, he believes that the Pac-12 will ultimately end up “in the middle” of the Power Five Conferences when it comes to media rights distributions.
He also told me that he could foresee a situation where a university that reaches the playoff, for example, might garner a much larger share of that windfall.
“That type of bonus,” Kliavkoff said, “would incentivize members where it counts.”
Don’t be surprised when that comes true. Also, I think it would extend to the NCAA Tournament units that the league typically splits evenly.
I think this type of unequal revenue sharing makes some sense. Winning big takes a greater financial commitment and should be rewarded.
LikeLike
I suggested such a model last week.
LikeLike
This is the first I’ve heard about an extension being an option. Why would the P12 want to extend it? You know ESPN’s offer, go start hearing from others to get some leverage.
LikeLike
They’re probably extending it because they can’t get Stanford, Washington and Oregon to sign GOR right now. And they probably can’t get Stanford, Washington and Oregon to sign GOR because those schools are trying to get into the Big Ten.
LikeLike
But why extend the exclusive window for Fox and ESPN, rather than just continuing negotiations with other companies also allowed to get involved? I don’t see the upside for the P12 unless ESPN requested it and gave some sort of incentive.
If ESPN did ask for this, it must be for one of two reasons:
1. They want to decide on whether or not to sign a B10 deal first
2. They think the B10 might take more P12 teams and don’t want to sign anything with the P12 until they know. But you can put in clauses for that, or get a GOR to prevent it after the deal is signed.
LikeLike
If the BIG has plans for further Western expansion wouldn’t it make sense for them to do it now? If they wait till later the PAC 12 teams would most likely have signed new media deals. I know it could decrease teams payouts, but I don’t see how waiting would make a difference.
LikeLike
It depends on what the Big Ten’s strategy is here.
The reality is that the Big Ten can grab any western school that it wants to at any time when a GoR is going to end because the SEC has no interest. (Pac-12 is looking at short-term deals, so presumably those would come with short-term GoRs). That could be now, it could be in 6 years, it could be in 12 years.
The ACC schools on the other hand are likely to be heavily contested.
In particular, the SEC will hone in on UNC and FSU.
Is the Big Ten interested in either? Any ACC school is a priority over Pac-12 schools because those ACC schools are likely to be wanted by the SEC.
Meanwhile, Stanford can always be added as a +1 to Notre Dame whenever ND wants.
So there’s other calculations here and this may not really play out in a big way until 2031-2033 when the ACC schools will likely start to look at moving.
I can still see a long-term future where schools like Washington and Stanford (maybe Oregon but that seems more unlikely) end up in the Big Ten. It just may be in 10-14 years rather than now.
LikeLike
This is wrong. Stanford and the others will only be available for very small windows once every several years. And a lot can change in several years. If the Big Ten knows that they want Stanford, for instance, and they think Stanford makes the Big Ten better, it is not in the Big Ten’s interest to let Stanford sign a GOR with the Pac 12 and then not be available for several years. I think if they’re going to do this then they’ll go ahead and do it before mid October. If they’re not that interested then just don’t do it.
LikeLike
The question is whether they’re teams you add as the next odd number school or even number school.
I’m leaning now towards Washington and Stanford being +1’s to other expansion scenarios.
LikeLike
Andy,
These moves get announced 2-3 years before the GOR ends, so the window isn’t that small. It does only happen every few years, but the move is towards shorter TV deals now as things are changing so quickly. It’s only the conference network deals that are long because you need the protection – it can’t just jump between networks.
I agree that if they want them on their own, then do it now. If they only want them with ND, wait to see if/when ND says yes.
LikeLike
Kevin Warren said that expansion is a 50-year decision. Viewed in that context, you might wait 5–10 more years for the right circumstances. As z33k points out, the Western schools will always be there, because they will never get invited to the SEC.
What would the Big Ten do if it could have whatever it wanted? Other than Notre Dame, we just don’t know. The rumors are poorly sourced and contradictory. Perhaps the Big Ten evaluated Washington and Stanford. That doesn’t mean it is dying to have them right now, only that they were worth looking at.
At times, the Big Ten has made sub-optimal moves. For instance, it would not have added Nebraska if it could have had Notre Dame. It would not have added Rutgers if it could have had Virginia. At times, you accept less than you want because doing something is better than doing nothing. But other times, you wait, because these moves are irreversible.
By all estimates I have seen, adding any more Western schools without Notre Dame would reduce the payout per school. That is why you might choose to wait, since the opportunity to add those schools later will always be there.
LikeLike
If it’s a 50 year decision, then minor fluctuations in the per school payout don’t matter so much. You look at the long term strategy. If these Pac 12 schools are going to lower payments slightly in the short term, is it still a good 50 year decision? That should be the standard. Is this a pure money grab? Or are you trying to make the Big Ten as good as possible long term.
LikeLike
It’s a pure money grab. Always. Everything else is window dressing.
NE added a brand and a CCG ($$$)
RU and UMD added markets and mid-Atlantic access ($$$)
USC and UCLA added brands and a market ($$$)
ND would add a brand and viewers ($$$)
LikeLike
RU and UMD also strengthened PSU’s ties to the B10. That was also a major impetus for the Eastern expansion. The ACC was trying to poach PSU. Which sounds ridiculous, but before UMD and RU were added, the ACC did have way more East Coast (NE and Mid-Atlantic) schools than the B10 and a lot of PSU fans want to play Eastern schools.
LikeLike
That’s all true. But the main reason to keep PSU and expand eastward was money, both athletic and future tuition.
LikeLike
Doug,
Yes. Normally they’d expand before signing the next TV deal because that maximizes the value. That’s why USC and UCLA were added before negotiations got too serious.
As you say, the B10 risks the P12 signing a GOR before the B10 can add them. They could add a clause to the new deal to pay a certain amount if new teams are added. The B10 would want a pro rata growth, but the networks probably don’t see that level of value in any possible additions outside of ND.
But if you add them up front, everyone can take a haircut to add them so everyone gets equal revenue and nobody knows what they might have gotten without them.
The only reason I can think of to wait is the want the revenue bump from CFP expansion to help pay for the new members.
LikeLike
If they know they’re looking at expanding, then they probably write that into the contract ahead of time. It could be Notre Dame is waiting to see how good of a deal the Big Ten can get before they commit to joining, and they don’t know which or how many Pac 12 schools they’re taking until they know what Notre Dame will do.
LikeLike
It could be, but they could also agree on numbers and show those to ND and wait on ND’s decision before signing the B10 deal. There’s no rush to get the deal signed.
LikeLike
Brian: “It could be, but they could also agree on numbers and show those to ND and wait on ND’s decision before signing the B10 deal.”
I’ll say it yet again: ND is NOT joining the Big Ten in the near future. ND and B1G and NBC are each playing one against the other two for their best possible deal in contract media rights negotiations. It is naïve to believe that this haggling is in good faith with regard to ND giving up their “induhpendunce”. They are not doing it.
LikeLike
I don’t think they are either, but you saying so repeatedly doesn’t influence my opinion either way. I just argued it would be simpler to delay signing the B10 deal until after they know if they are adding anyone (ND or P12) than to put in clauses for how much more to add if schools are added.
LikeLike
Brian if I were ND that’s exactly what I would do.
Just speculating here but, what if NBC says we can bring ND to the BIG if you allow us to exclusively air all ND home games and the away games can be show by BIG Network, FOX etc. If the $$$ are right I would think ND would be on board with that and I think the other BIG teams would be ok with that due to the additional $$$$$ ND would bring.
LikeLike
Personally, I’d be fine with NBC getting to air all the ND games as long as the money is split equally, the announcers cover it as B10 announcers (they can’t be ND homers during conference games, for example), and there’s no special scheduling for ND (the 2:30 kickoff).
Would the schools actually accept that? Maybe. Some probably feel like Fox essentially gets all the OSU games already. It seems like a small price to pay to add ND. In general the B10 really prefers equal treatment, and they may worry about letting NDS think they are special. Maybe it could be a temporary thing to ease them in.
LikeLike
I suspect the reason they are waiting is because they don’t want to do a westward expansion without Notre Dame. Every expansion makes it less of a conference and more of a TV collaboration. So you want to be certain before you go to 18 or 20. And I just don’t see beyond 20 making sense financially or otherwise.
So its Notre Dame or they stick at 16. And with Notre Dame, the question is whether they want to maximize revenue at 18 or for strategic reasons go to 20.
LikeLike
If the B10 adds ND+Stanford+Cal+UW to go to 20, I can see FSU+Miami making sense financially.
But for both the B10 and SEC, adding any combo of UNC/UVa/Duke(/GTech for the B10) would be for prestige or other nonfinancial reasons because they would be dilutive financially.
LikeLike
Richard: ” I can see FSU+Miami making sense financially.”
There is a very real possibility that the SEC doesn’t want the Big Ten within their footprint.
LikeLike
Agreed, bullet.
LikeLike
Colin: I don’t think this “preventing other conferences from being in your footprint” stuff is as important to the schools and conferences as it may be to some fans. For instance, I don’t see the SEC taking GTech just to keep the B10 from Atlanta.
The SEC may well win FSU, but I don’t see the SEC being willing to have 3 schools in FL so Miami likely will be there for the B10 if the B10 wants.
LikeLike
Richard,
In general, I agree that adding a school just to maintain geographic purity doesn’t make sense. But I’ve seen it speculated by reporters who do have SEC sources, so maybe they are hearing rumblings that it’s a consideration.
There is some advantage to the SEC in keeping the B10 out of FL by taking FSU. If FSU is a borderline addition to the SEC, that may be the extra value that gets them approved.
As you, I don’t see Miami meaning as much. Or GT. But FSU in FL is similar to TAMU in TX , a strong 2nd, plus it has the proximity to GA for strong recruiting there as well (like OU reaching into Dallas and TX in general).
There’s also a little ego involved. And maybe ESPN has warned the SEC it would be bad to let the B10 own the north, west and have roots in FL.
LikeLike
Yesterday, Rick Neuheisel chimed in again that ND is “in play,” and that he now thinks it will be ND, Stanford, Cal, Washington, and Oregon to the B1G. Among other things, Neuheisel is a lawyer. My impression is that he doesn’t just throw stuff against the wall for ratings. Also, his kid is a coach on the UCLA staff.
LikeLike
“Yesterday, Rick Neuheisel chimed in again that ND is “in play,”
Frankly, I don’t buy it. Just yesterday, Marcus Freeman was chirping about “independence” and I think most of the current posturing concerns NBC – ND – Big Ten media rights negotiations. I believe that is what is “in play” and that NBC will be where part of the Big Ten will end up when the dust settles. And as one sportwriter noted, the more money that NBC pays to ND, the less there will be for the Big Ten, and vice versa.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10043631-notre-dame-hc-marcus-freeman-doesnt-see-school-joining-conference-amid-expansion
LikeLike
Based on watching ND closely over 40 years, my hunch — but that’s all it is — is that Swarbrick tossed out the $75 million figure already knowing that NBC wouldn’t pay it. He did this to attempt to soften up whatever remaining resistance there might be to joining the B1G, which as has been well-documented, the on-campus interests have wanted to do for decades.
LikeLike
That makes sense.
LikeLike
Peter Griffin, interesting. That would be 21 teams in the Big Ten. Would they go to an odd number? I agree that Neuheisel would be an interesting potential source. Not saying he’s right, but maybe. I’d love to see those 5 schools in the Big Ten,
LikeLiked by 1 person
All you have to do is read his bio — played at UCLA, JD from USC, head coach at Washington, Colorado, and UCLA, and now son on UCLA staff. There can’t be too many people more wired in at more places in the PAC than he is.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s true. And he doesn’t seem like one to make things up and run his mouth off either, like some media personalities do.
LikeLike
I don’t see the B10 adding 5 schools. I get that having 6 pacific schools sounds good, but 20 total makes more sense (or 22, if there was 1 more out there – CU?).
LikeLike
21 puts the pressure on the ACC for 2036, as it almost certainly would mean UVa, UNC and either Duke or Georgia Tech would round out the B1G to 24 members, while limiting any SEC pilfering of the ACC to 20 members, adding Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech and NCSU. (Miami isn’t a cultural fit for the SEC, and I doubt UF would agree to a third Florida member.)
LikeLike
I don’t see any extra pressure from that. The B10 will try for schools they want, then figure out a +1 if needed.
LikeLike
vpo819, The Big Ten is reportedly primarily interested in Miami and FSU out of the ACC.
LikeLike
Andy: “vpo819, The Big Ten is reportedly primarily interested in Miami and FSU out of the ACC.”
Andy, the ACC schools are hand-cuffed to their GOR until 2036. That is an absolute showstopper unless there is some kind of miracle conference dissolution before that date. And even if it came up for a vote, why would the losers like Wake, Cuse and BC vote for it?
LikeLike
It’ll have to wait 14 years to pry either or both from the ACC.
LikeLike
Over the past month, my thinking has changed a lot on the remaining Pac-12 schools; I do think the Big Ten ends up with 1 or 2 more (Stanford very likely and Washington probably a bit less likely) to finish building out the West Coast of the conference.
But I don’t think any of them are the #17 school (or insert odd number) that justifies the next round of expansion.
I think both Washington and Stanford are the +1s in expansion at this point.
If you end up with an odd number due to ND joining or 1 or 3 ACC schools joining, that’s when you go to Stanford/Washington.
For example, I think Washington should be clearly ahead of Georgia Tech as the +1 in most ACC scenarios that exclude FSU. (Of course I can be wrong and the Big Ten presidents may really want to plant a flag in Atlanta, but I’m very skeptical that it makes more sense to play a very distant second fiddle in Atlanta than to take control of Washington which is the 3rd largest state available outside of NC/VA).
Washington is probably the best #4 if UNC requires Duke to come in tow along with UVa.
It’s hard to ever see Washington or Stanford not being there eventually, the Pac-12 is likely going to have a GOR that ends in the mid-2030s (or a 2nd GoR if they sign two 6 year GoRs), and if you absolutely have to stay at an odd number for a year or two, you figure out how to make it work.
I just don’t see the rush until the ACC situation is worked out…
LikeLike
There’s a very high chance UNC ends up in the SEC. You can’t count on that one whatsoever. And even if they did, the odds of Washington and UNC being available out of GOR at the same time is fairly low. If one is available the other might not be and vice versa.
If Stanford and Washington make the Big Ten better, add them. If they don’t, then don’t. No need to game this out 14 years on significantly unlikely hypotheticals.
If Washington doesn’t add enough, so be it, don’t add them.
But honestly Stanford and Washington both bring more value than most existing Big Ten schools. They raise the average of the conference in a bunch of different categories.
Maybe they’re slightly low on TV dollars. But a) that’s not the end of the world necessarily, and b) you can always give them a reduced share if you have to. Odds are they’d agree to it.
LikeLike
Let me put it this way: Maryland was considered a decently good add to the Big Ten. Stanford and Washington are easily more valuable than Maryland. Easily. Better at sports. Higher population. Significantly higher research expenditures. Better academics. Better branding. etc. etc.
LikeLike
Andy, that is an interesting take on the situation and I agree with it. When institutions that will be long-term assets to the conference become available, they should be invited; I believe Stanford, Cal, and Washington meet that bar (although they may have be be given partial shares for the first few years for financial reasons). Please, please no Ducks!
LikeLike
Oregon to me is a lesser version of Nebraska. They’re going to get kicked out of the AAU like Nebraska did. And their football tradition is not as strong as Nebraska’s. So they’d get a no vote from me. But it wouldn’t be the end of the world if they get in.
The others seem like good fits to me. Cal I can see the argument against them because they are bad at football. I’d still vote to take them if I had a vote, but I’d understand not taking them. Stanford and Washington seem like strong yeses to me.
LikeLike
I just can’t see the presidents turning down Cal. They are arguably the top public school of which most of these B1G schools aspire to be academically.
I do worry about adding too many schools. We are primed for some lousy matchups but the power programs need to rack up wins against someone. We can’t have too many 0.500 team records.
I also worry about basketball. As a Badger fan I would not be excited to play all the west coast schools.
LikeLike
You wouldn’t be excited to play UCLA in basketball? That’s odd.
Just my opinion, but I think adding Stanford and Cal would be great for the Big Ten reputationally. It basically becomes another Ivy League type conference with all those good schools assembled in one conference. So I can see the temptation by the presidents to do it. They sacrifice a little on the football side to make gains on academic prestige. But I don’t know if they’ll do it or not. It will be interesting. I think it could go either way. It would be a shame IMO if they add Oregon and not Cal. If they do I think they’ll regret it long term.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin,
The B10 has a lot less quality depth in football than the SEC does. The SEC powers still win plenty of games.
LikeLike
Brian: “The B10 has a lot less quality depth in football than the SEC does.”
There will always be a lower half – Kaintuck, USC East, Vandy, Arkysaw, Miss State, Mizzou.
LikeLike
Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Vanderbilt are the weaker schools in the SEC at football, true. But I’d take my chances with them head to head vs UCLA, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue, Northwestern, and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Andy: “But I’d take my chances with them head to head vs UCLA, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue, Northwestern, and Nebraska.”
You might need to remove one of those whipping boys from your list. Purdue was 9-4 last year, including a win over Tennessee, and is a nine-point favorite over Penn State on Sept 1st.
LikeLike
And the lower tier SEC schools are committed to football and largely fill their stadiums. Even Vandy under Franklin had three straight 9 win seasons. Miss State was the first #1 in the CFP rankings and played in a NY6 bowl. Ole Miss has played in three NY6 games. Mizzou played in SEC championship games. Under Spurrier, South Carolina had three straight 11 win seasons. Arkansas & Miss State have appeared in the SEC CCG. Kentucky is steadily improving. It wasn’t that long ago that Arkansas was in the top 5. Other than Vandy, they usually outrank the 2nd tier of the B1G in recruiting.
And in 2007 when LSU beat Ohio State in the BCS NCG, becoming a two loss national champion, do you know who handed my Tigers those two losses? Kentucky & Arkansas – both in 3OT games.
LikeLike
The DC market has 2.57M households to 2.65M in SF, plus UMD adds Baltimore (1.13M) and the rest of the state. Stanford brings a very limited area. DC also brings outsized importance as a city. Seattle has 2.10M households.
Plus UMD added mid-Atlantic access and eastern partners for PSU. There were a lot of B10 alumni in DC as well (more so than Seattle). UMD has a better hoops brand, but is worse in football than the western two. But that wasn’t the value they were expected to bring. As a bonus, they bring a cultural bridge to the ACC and potential targets in UVA and then UNC.
If UMD wasn’t a member now, they’d also be tough to justify adding. USC and UCLA raised the bar. MO would be in the same boat with the SEC.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you’re doing with the numbers there but that doesn’t seem right.
Population Maryland+DC = 6.7 million people
Population Washington state = 7.5 million
Population San Francisco Bay Area = 7.8 million
Annual research expenditures
Washington = $1.5 billion
Stanford = $1.2 billion
Maryland = $1.1 billion
Washington and Stanford are vastly better at football than Maryland.
As far as Maryland being a bridge to UNC, that’s totally hypothetical and very well may never materialize. I continue to hear that UNC is most likely going to end up in the SEC.
LikeLike
Maryland brings a far superior recruiting base and was a solid add for hoops. With the right coach they should compete for national championships.
LikeLike
Hoops? Sure. But I don’t think basketball matters all that much in all of this.
LikeLike
Click to access OAAA%202021%20NIELSEN%20DMA%20Rankings%20Report.pdf
I pulled the numbers from that source. It’s TV households, not people.
Of course the bridge concept was conceptual. But it was a consideration in their addition, so I listed it.
I couldn’t care less what you keep “hearing” about UNC to the SEC unless you can show me a legitimate report of it. Of course SEC fans have pro-SEC rumors. I discount all the rumors on the B10 side, too.
LikeLike
There were multiple legitimate reports of who the Big Ten is considering adding and UNC was not listed. Notre Dame, Stanford, Cal, Washington, Oregon, Florida State, and Miami were.
There have been numerous reports on who the SEC is considering. The schools always mentioned are UNC, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson, and Miami.
So yes, there are legitimate reports out there beyond the rumors.
The rumors, which I have seen numerous places from numerous sources, are that the SEC feels good about adding several ACC schools, and every single rumor includes UNC as one of them.
LikeLike
Why are they easily a better add than UMd? UMd was supposed to also bring Washington, DC, and much closer access to the political capital for the B1G. The population of MD plus DC is slightly lower than the State of Washington, but that state also has Washington State. I do not know what WaState takes away, but it is something.
It was also a strategic move by Delany as a connection to the northern ACC teams. That may not have worked out. That book is not closed yet.
Stanford is obviously the academic gem and if ND wants them, they are a no brainer.
As far as population, we do not know. What market did USC and UCLA bring from the SF area? What small part of the SF market is Cal, not Stanford?
From projections, neither will pay its own way in B1G.
What these analyses seem to be largely ignoring is what USC wants (and UCLA to a lesser extent). If USC does not want Washington or Oregon to effectively recruit in Southern CA, is that not really important? Was USC given a veto power over the northwest schools? Who knows?
Why were only two PAC schools invited up front?
(I think that it is less likely that USC could simply exclude Stanford or Cal, and USC would have less reason to do so. How many times do Stanford or Cal and USC go to the wire for a recruit? Probably much less frequently that Oregon or Washington.)
LikeLike
Bernie, like I said above:
Population Maryland+DC = 6.7 million people
Population Washington state = 7.5 million
Population San Francisco Bay Area = 7.8 million
Annual research expenditures
Washington = $1.5 billion
Stanford = $1.2 billion
Maryland = $1.1 billion
Plus, both Washington and Stanford are way better at football than Maryland. Add all those three up and they’re a slam dunk compared to Maryland.
I don’t buy at all that Maryland is going to bring UNC. Everything I’ve heard lately is that UNC prefers the SEC. And I don’t think UNC has that strong of ties to Maryland anyway.
Maryland is fine. I’m fine with the fact that the Big Ten added them. I just think Stanford and Washington are better.
If you get USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington, the Big Ten basically owns the West Coast. Which is something like 50 million people.
LikeLike
Regarding the question “what small part of the SF market is Cal”, Cal represents the largest potential fan base in the SF Bay Area. The reason it hasn’t materialized in the last 10 years is because Cal football has sucked. Now there is a chicken and egg problem here. Part of the reason that Cal football has not reached the Rose Bowl since the 1950s is that the academics don’t want to compromise academic integrity, it is very hard politically for California public schools (including UCLA) to pay the going rate for a good football coach, and the fans are fair-weathered and not obsessed enough to be demanding. But remember, there are 10k new Cal grads every year, compared to only 1.66k new Stanford grads. And Cal grads are FAR more likely to remain in the Bay Area than Stanford grads. What % of Cal grads care about football? I don’t know, but I am pretty confident that the percentage is not a lot lower than it is for Stanford grads. If Cal ever got to the Rose Bowl, LA would be overriden with (real, not pale) blue and gold.
LikeLike
As an Army captain in 1973, I was assigned to Letterman Army Medical Center in SF and received free tickets to an Army-Cal game at Cal. It was the first college football game that I had attended other than games at Purdue, Illinois, Indiana or Notre Dame.
I was shocked. The stadium was 3/4ths empty and the fans who attended were laying around like they were sunbathing on the beach. No cheering at all. None. They were socializing, not watching the game.
Cal football brings nothing to the Big Ten. We’d be better off with Ball State or Toledo.
LikeLike
Yeah, I attended a game at Duke 25-30 years ago. You walked up on game day to buy tickets and could sit wherever you wanted. Compared to an OSU game, it was a bit of a shock.
LikeLike
Andy,
“But honestly Stanford and Washington both bring more value than most existing Big Ten schools. They raise the average of the conference in a bunch of different categories.”
The existing schools bring sufficient value for the B10 to make what it currently makes. If UW or Stanford lower that, then they probably aren’t bringing more value than most schools. A lot of schools add value to the B10 in different ways. UW and Stanford were valued at $30M and $45M in the P12. Even if they’re worth $60M each to the B10 that’s well below the expected new deal.
“Maybe they’re slightly low on TV dollars. But a) that’s not the end of the world necessarily, and b) you can always give them a reduced share if you have to. Odds are they’d agree to it.”
It’s not the end of the world, but money is the main point of conference expansion. If USC and UCLA didn’t want western partners, why lose money to add some? If they did want them, then that’s an incentive to consider it but why didn’t the B10 just add them at the same time?
How many schools will the SEC add that lower their payouts? The whole B12 would say yes if the SEC asked.
LikeLike
It’s not just about TV money though. It’s a 50+ year decision. Having the best major universities across the west coast, universities with very strong athletics traditions that do literally billions in research, does bring a lot of value, even if it’s not immediate TV dollar value. And like I said, if the TV dollars are a problem, you just let them in at a reduced share. They would probably agree to that under the circumstances.
It’s just crazy to me that the Big Ten would add Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland, and then balk at adding Stanford and Washington. I get the hesitatiion for Cal. They stink at revenue sports. And I get the hesitation for Oregon. Their academics are poor. But Stanford and Washington are very strong at sports and extremely strong at academics. And they are located within huge TV markets. It just makes too much sense not to do it IMO.
LikeLike
The BTN model is dying. That was a huge factor in Rutgers and Maryland. Nebraska was one of the 8 or 9 bluebloods at the time. And without any question one of the top 12 programs in the country. The BTN won’t justify Stanford, Cal or UW. It doesn’t make financial sense. Now if they get Notre Dame, maybe they grab 1 to 3 even though they would make more at 17 with just ND.
The Academic stuff doesn’t rub off. Its just a floor for the snobs and a hope that the new members don’t recruit illiterates. Florida and Vanderbilt have done just fine in the SEC. Texas has done just fine in the SWC and Big 12. Nebraska got kicked out of the AAU after agreeing to join the Big 10. Houston, Cincinnati, UCF and USF have all made great strides in non-P5 conferences. Oregon St. and Washington St. are still Oregon St. and Washington St. despite being in the Pac 12.
Think like a university president doesn’t mean you ignore finances and invite Rice.
LikeLike
Of course not. But Cal isn’t Rice athletically. They’re not great but they’re at least on par with a chunk of the existing Big Ten. If they weren’t then it wouldn’t even be a possibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy you are very hung up on the strictly academic part of the equation. Once the school is AAU and otherwise respectable, what does the extra research dollars at Washington (or Stanford) do for the B1G?
How do you figure huge TV markets for Washington, Cal, or Stanford? Again, how much of that Bay area is locked up by USC or UCLA? Does Washington State U have any fans who do not follow or like UWash? How many?
The financial analysis does not support the value that you attribute to their huge TV markets.
You again come back to RU and UMd, which brought 40 million people into the B1G footprint as the only two D1 teams in the mid-Atlantic (other then Pitt and PSU in Western PA). They were also both brought specifically to satisfy PSU, which was grumbling quite a bit. Is that relevant? What existing B1G school is clamoring to bring UWash on board?
For that matter, excluding the possible ND connection, who is chasing Stanford, notwithstanding how great the school may be. Stanford has nothing that it can do other than wait. I cannot imagine the academics at Stanford ever agreeing to join the Big 12 if invited, so the B1G is the only league game in town.
UMd was already in the ACC. RU was forlorn in the AAC, but had some market value to both the ACC and the Big 12 (as much as they would have hated the Big 12). RU was drowning and Stanford is not, but RU actually had other potential landing areas, if RU football lasted long enough. (Which might not have been possible, but who knows)
Has anyone credibly suggested that RU and UMd are not carrying their weight financially? Has the increased financial impact of those 40 million people made the B1G more attractive for USC and UCLA? Was playing near DC and NYC a lure for USC?
Back to ND. ND has a really huge T-shirt base in the NY area. After Rutgers, ND sports is the second most popular in NYC. How big is the ND contingent in Seattle?
How often have you heard recently that a lure for ND is that the B1G is in Washington and NYC? While Stanford may well be a lure for ND, do you think that ND is swayed by being in Seattle?
The B1G is not the Ivy League with sports. It is an athletic conference which tries to uphold high level academics. If the be all and end all were academics
only, Stanford and Cal would have been invited already.
Nebraska was a football king that has slipped. That is an entirely different issue.
LikeLike
Also, Cal has 45k students, which is Big Ten sized. Rice has only 6k students.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bernie, nobody wanted Rutgers. Nobody. And there was no rush. Nobody was going to take Rutgers. But the Big Ten took them. Did anyone want Maryland? I don’t think the SEC wanted Maryland. And what was the rush there? There wasn’t one. The Big Ten saw an opportunity to take them and they did. Same goes here. You say adding Maryland and Rutgers added 40 million people? I guess technically maybe. But no way in hell are there 40 million Rutgers and Maryland fans. Not even close to that. You say there are some Washington State fans in Washington? Well, yes, of course there are. Are there fans of other schools in New Jersey and New York and DC and Maryland? Definitely. But if you take, at a minimum, USC/UCLA/Stanford/Washington – you’ve basically got the entire west coast market locked down just as much or more than how Rutgers supposedly got you the New York area. If you really want to lock it down add Oregon and maybe Cal. The west coast is over 50 million people. So it would be even more than what Rutgers and Maryland added. And on top of that, several of those west coast schools area actually good at football, unlike Rutgers and Maryland, since you said this is about sports. As far as academics, Stanford and Cal are a unique opportunity to gain two super elite academic institutions at also just so happen to have Big Ten caliber athletics. That in itself isn’t a slam dunk, but it does have substantial value worth considering.
LikeLike
Andy,
“It’s not just about TV money though.”
But it mostly is.
“It’s a 50+ year decision.”
That decision is largely about money (from all sources) over that 50 years.
“Having the best major universities across the west coast, universities with very strong athletics traditions that do literally billions in research, does bring a lot of value, even if it’s not immediate TV dollar value.”
The B10’s reputation is good enough that there isn’t a lot to gain this way. Researchers in the B10 already work with people at these schools.
“And like I said, if the TV dollars are a problem, you just let them in at a reduced share. They would probably agree to that under the circumstances.”
That’s always a theoretical option, but it can lead to later problems. For the most part people are assuming equal revenue shares (maybe after a buy-in).
“It’s just crazy to me that the Big Ten would add Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland, and then balk at adding Stanford and Washington.”
That was then, this is now. The B10 probably wouldn’t add PU now either. And it wouldn’t turn down UT or ND like it did in the past.
At some point you need to consider the size of the conference. Fans love to theorize huge conferences, but they don’t have to deal with the details of running them, scheduling them, and keeping everyone on the same page. Playing Realignment Risk is easier than the real world.
LikeLike
Brian: “At some point you need to consider the size of the conference. Fans love to theorize huge conferences, but they don’t have to deal with the details of running them, scheduling them, and keeping everyone on the same page. Playing Realignment Risk is easier than the real world.”
BINGO! That is why the Big Ten will stay at 16 and the SEC will stay at 16.
LikeLike
Brian, that at the end is the one argument I can agree with against adding these schools. If they really want to keep the Big Ten at a manageable size, say 16 or 18 schools, I can get on board with that. It would certainly make for more cohesive conferences if the Big Ten and SEC would stay at 16 or 18. But assuming they’re going to be adding several more schools anyway, I think these are good schools to be adding. The latest talk by Warren makes it sound like they are going to 20 or more schools, in which case I would say at a minimum it makes sense to add Stanford and Washington to lock down the west coast and add two really strong schools with good athletics departments in good markets.
LikeLike
Andy,
Since 1998 (BCS + CFP era), Cal is #70 in W% (ahead of 5 B10 schools). Stanford is #44, similar to MO, behind 7 current B10 schools. UW is #57 (just ahead of MN).
They aren’t powers.
LikeLike
Andy
The ACC talked to Penn State’s leadership back in 2012 about joining them to complete Joseph’s vision of an Eastern football conference with strong recruiting across the East including the Southeast.
It’s unlikely that it would have happened but there were ACC dreams of adding Penn State and ND.
Taking Maryland was an offensive and defensive move.
Secured Penn State, took the DC-Baltimore markets in Maryland, added a close rival to UVa and original founding member of that core ACC group of UNC+Tobacco Road/UVA/MD.
And got the Big Ten moving towards the Mid-Atlantic recruiting grounds.
There were so many reasons why Maryland made perfect sense and still does.
Rutgers was fortunate to get the #14 spot by being the right partner to round out expansion as a large flagship in a key market with good academics.
Washington is in an identical spot to Rutgers now. Stanford isn’t a flagship but is also in a similar role. Both have strong football traditions (both behind only USC in Pac-12 Rose Bowl bids).
But again all the stuff Maryland did is why it was a #13 “odd” number addition that could justify taking 2 more teams.
And all that tactical stuff only matters because financially it was a win.
LikeLike
By that standard neither is UCLA or Maryland or Rutgers. Or Nebraska, for that matter, if you’re talking since 1998. They’re not football powers but they’re solid at athletics. Washington has made the playoffs. Stanford made several Rose Bowls. Cal hasn’t done a whole lot and they’re the least likely of the three. And if you throw Oregon in there, they’ve been quite good at football.
LikeLike
Then if you look out east, is Virginia any better than Stanford/Washington/Oregon when it comes to football? No. Is Georgia Tech? No. What about UNC? They’re okay, probably about on par with Washington, maybe a little worse, although I don’t have the exact numbers. So none of those are really going to be a whole lot better. Now, if you’re talking about Florida State and Miami – those two bring big markets and good football. There’s at least an argument there that they’d be better. But for FSU at least you’d need to fight the SEC for them. Where as Stanford/Washington/Oregon are there for the taking.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Bernie, nobody wanted Rutgers. Nobody.”
The people whose opinions actually matter did.
LikeLike
Andy,
Sure, if the B10 was already planning to add several more schools anyway, UW and Stanford are really good options. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. I just don’t take that assumption for granted.
LikeLike
Well obviously the Big Ten ended up wanting Rutgers. But he’s saying don’t take Stanford because nobody else wants them. Well, nobody else wanted Rutgers. The ACC didn’t even take Rutgers, and could have. There was no competition for Rutgers any more than there is competition for Stanford.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian, then we agree. I’m 100% fine with staying at 16. But it sounds like the Big Ten wants to expand. So *IF* they want to expand, then I think they should take Stanford and Washington.
LikeLike
Andy,
“By that standard neither is UCLA or Maryland or Rutgers.”
No, they aren’t. Who ever claimed they were? You pointed out how strong UW and Stanford were in sports. I just put some numbers on it.
“Or Nebraska, for that matter, if you’re talking since 1998.”
They’re still #29 in W% since 1998, even with this disastrous past few years.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Then if you look out east, is Virginia any better than Stanford/Washington/Oregon when it comes to football? No.”
Is anybody saying to add UVA for athletic prowess? No.
VA borders MD and UVA has a rivalry with UMD. UVA also has a rivalry with UNC. VA is a large and growing state. NoVA completes the DC market grab.
“Is Georgia Tech? No.”
And yet GT has a higher W% since 1998 than Stanford. And a huge market with great recruiting grounds. But few think GT is even an option.
“What about UNC? They’re okay, probably about on par with Washington, maybe a little worse, although I don’t have the exact numbers.”
UNC is worse than UK and PU in football since 1998, #79 in W%. NC is larger than WA.
“So none of those are really going to be a whole lot better.”
I agree, it’s a bunch of schools that might not be worth adding. The B10 doesn’t have to expand (unless ND agrees, then you take them +1).
“Where as Stanford/Washington/Oregon are there for the taking.”
And they always will be. So why rush into anything?
LikeLike
That’s amazing that Nebraska is still #29. Hard to believe.
My point is, Stanford sports including football are plenty good enough to do well in the Big Ten. Same goes for Washington and Oregon. Cal, probably not, but they’re at least as good as Rutgers and Maryland.
And when you look at what’s available out there, I don’t really see anything better. Yes, Miami and FSU are better at football, but worse academically and also you’d have to beat out the SEC for them.
Stanford and Washington are about as good as it gets as far as remaining expansion opportunities other than Notre Dame. Oregon and Cal are flawed candidates but still arguably maybe worth it.
The question is do they wan to stay at 16 or do they want to expand. All the current rhetoric suggests expansion. But we’ll see.
LikeLike
So we agree that adding Stanford/Washington would be at least similarly as good as adding UNC/Virginia/Georgia Tech.
What’s the rush? There isn’t a rush. There was no rush in adding Rutgers or Nebraska either. Both of those two schools would have happily joined today if the Big Ten had waited.
It’s not about being in a rush. It’s about deciding what you want to do and doing it. If Stanford and Washington are good adds and you wan to expand, then add them.
If you don’t want to expand, then don’t.
But there sure is a lot of talk about expansion if they aren’t interested in doing it.
LikeLike
Andy,
“But he’s saying don’t take Stanford because nobody else wants them. Well, nobody else wanted Rutgers.”
The B10 then was at 13 schools and wanted/needed a 14th (and they needed to play lacrosse). The B10 now is at 16 and doesn’t need anyone else at the moment. Those are entirely different scenarios. Nobody would’ve suggested taking RU to get to 13 and wait around to see if ND or UMD or someone else became interested, even though RU would’ve paid for themselves anyway.
LikeLike
Andy,
You are working from what most of us here consider a flawed premise: that the ACC schools will 100% join the SEC.
From that POV, the B10 expanding west now seems more wise as there are no other options even in the future.
If you believe the ACC schools may be an option, it changes the scenario.
You 100% believe that the internet rumors and a couple of anonymously-sourced reports about the ACC schools are correct. Most of us don’t give them as much credence. We aren’t saying they’re necessarily wrong, we just don’t give them much weight.
We will never agree on next steps for the B10 when we view the world that differently.
LikeLike
Andy,
“So we agree that adding Stanford/Washington would be at least similarly as good as adding UNC/Virginia/Georgia Tech.”
I’d say could be as good. We don’t have nearly as much detailed info as the decision makers do about the relative merits of these schools. And, of course, we can’t see the future. Maybe GT will hire the next Nick Saban and win 8 national titles in the next 30 years.
“There was no rush in adding Rutgers or Nebraska either.”
Yes, there was. In both cases the B10 was at odd numbers. NE was needed to stage a CCG. RU was needed to pair with UMD. Perhaps the B10 also realized the era of long GORs was coming as conference networks grew, so NE had to be gotten while they were available. So did UMD, which led to RU.
“But there sure is a lot of talk about expansion if they aren’t interested in doing it.”
Most of the talk is from fans.
Warren made a few comments about it at media days, just like every commissioner does every year. That’s it.
LikeLike
Andy, I was in favor of adding Rutgers as a #14 type of addition, as an *even* addition. Not an odd number addition
#12 being Nebraska is different due to the CCG issue. Once you hit 12 though, the *odd* number additions are the important ones.
I would submit that at this point only ACC schools can be odd number additions, i.e. #17 or 19 or 21 (whatever).
Washington and Stanford are even number additions; they are there to join to round out the numbers back to even.
So let’s say the Big Ten goes full on UVa and UNC in 2031. The SEC gets UNC, but the Big Ten gets UVa.
Well the Big Ten can then call up Washington and add them as #18 to go along with UVa as #17.
Or draw up whatever scenarios; maybe if the SEC *does* get both UNC and UVa, then the Big Ten calls up Washington/Stanford just to add numbers up to 18.
But why make that call now when we have no earthly clue what’s going on with UVa or UNC?
Those two are in my mind, two of the absolute key pieces on this board other than ND. We have plenty of evidence that the Big Ten called UVa to join with Maryland but that UVa decided to commit to the ACC instead because they were financially okay and the $ numbers weren’t that big of a difference at the time to justify it.
Now things are different and we will see what happens in 2031-2034.
I don’t know what UNC or UVa or FSU (or even ND) will want to do, but if UNC or UVa justify futher expansion, wait to see what they want to do first. Washington/Stanford work to round out expansion numbers.
LikeLike
Brian and Z33k, it’s not that I 100% believe that the SEC will get UNC and the other good ACC schools. But I do believe there is a significant chance that they will. That much seems obvious.
And furthermore, if you look at the numbers, adding Stanford and Washington isn’t really any worse than adding UNC and Virginia. The main difference being that the Big Ten’s chances of getting Stanford and Washington are up around 99%, whereas the odds of getting Virginia and UNC are almost certainly significantly lower than 99%.
Yes, you *could* wait until you miss out on UNC/Virginia before taking Stanford/Washington, but if Stanford/Washington is just as good, then why wait? Why not just do it now?
Anyway, if the rumors are true then Stanford and Washington will be joining the Big Ten within the next 10 weeks. And if they aren’t, then Stanford and Washington will be signing a GOR in the Pac 12 by then. So either way we’ll know shortly.
LikeLike
Andy,
No offense, but those are just your numbers. You are not a professional at determining the value of schools to conferences (just as nobody else here is).
If/when you find a sports media expert that gives valuation estimates for the ACC schools vs the P12 schools, then there’s more to talk about. I’ve only seen numbers for the P12 schools so far.
LikeLike
It’s speculation, yes, but it’s informed speculation. We know that:
1) Virginia, UNC, and GA Tech have not been very good at football in recent decades.
2) Their football tv ratings are just so-so.
3) They do have good sized markets, but so do the west coast schools.
Perhaps the ACC schools are worth a little more but I doubt there’s a huge difference between the two.
LikeLike
Andy,
“1) Virginia, UNC, and GA Tech have not been very good at football in recent decades.”
True. But “only” 32 years ago, GT won a national title. And they had some good years since then. Since 1998, GT has a higher W% than Stanford.
UVA has only had flashes (but they did win in hoops), and their W% is on par with Cal’s. UNC has been notably worse, more like Arizona (but UNC brings that hoops brand).
“2) Their football tv ratings are just so-so.”
Probably. Playing in a down ACC doesn’t help that. On Andy Staples list of 1M viewer games, UNC was just behind Stanford (18 vs 16). UVA had 9 and GT 6. UW had 28, UO 26, and Cal 12.
Zach Miller’s list of average viewers had #10 UO, #36 UNC (just behind Miami), #38 UW, #46 Stanford, #52 UVA, #61 GT, #76 Cal. The P12 games killed them I assume, though many ACC games get ESPNU type coverage.
“3) They do have good sized markets, but so do the west coast schools.”
https://archive.nytimes.com/thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
There are large markets on both coasts. But fan fervor can matter for some things.
In this old piece from the NYT, they estimate the number of CFB fans in each city.
1. NYC
2. Atlanta
3. LA
4. Dallas
5. Chicago
6. Birmingham
7. Philadelphia
8. Houston
9. Tampa
10. Detroit
That says GT needs to be considered. I wish they’d given a longer list.
“Perhaps the ACC schools are worth a little more but I doubt there’s a huge difference between the two.”
In just athletics dollars, I’d agree. With our limited knowledge, I’d think the estimates of their value are contained within the error bars of each other. We can’t tell them apart.
But we also don’t know what else matters to the presidents and how much it matters, or what other data they have. These other things may drive the decision if the money doesn’t clearly favor one or the other.
LikeLike
None of the 4 West Coast schools under consideration or UNC/UVa/Duke/GTech stand out much from each other.
As I noted below, the only pieces left on the chessboard that aren’t dilutive to the B10 or SEC are ND, FSU, and (probably) Clemson and Miami.
ND is a large enough whale to make the addition of multiple other schools non-dilutive. None of the rest are. The B10 or SEC may still add some combo of UNC/UVa/Duke/GTech but it would have to be for prestige (academic and basketball)/nonfinancial reasons.
LikeLike
UNC’s southern appeal is drastically overrated, especially since the 1950s, when Frank McGuire brought in many New Yorkers to play basketball (countering Everett Case’s teams of Indianans at N.C. State). For decades, Chapel Hill’s progressive environment has lured many northerners to UNC — and Charlottesville has done likewise for UVa. (Alas, I don’t have specifics on out-of-state enrollment for each.) I can’t imagine the schools splitting conferences, and I don’t see the football-uber-alles mindset of the SEC appealing to either. Let that league have the Gobblers, Wolfpack, Clemson and FSU.
.
LikeLike
Certainly that is what Big Ten fans are hoping but it’s far from a sure thing.
The latest reports don’t even list UNC as one fo the schools the Big Ten is considering. Perhaps because the SEC already has them locked up and the Big Ten knows it.
LikeLike
Andy,
No matter how many times you repeat it, your argument makes no sense.
“Certainly that is what Big Ten fans are hoping but it’s far from a sure thing.”
1. Lots of B10 fans have no interest in adding UVA and UNC
2. Almost nobody has claimed it’s a “sure thing” they’d choose the B10
“The latest reports don’t even list UNC as one fo the schools the Big Ten is considering.”
Those “reports” didn’t rule out UNC, they just didn’t list them. Some of the reports didn’t name ND either. It’s meaningless. It’s a source saying what other people are talking about.
“Perhaps because the SEC already has them locked up and the Big Ten knows it.”
Even if the B10 knew 100% that UNC currently prefers the SEC, why would they stop considering them? They aren’t available for over a decade, and things can change. If you want them, you keep considering them. The B10 never stopped considering ND despite knowing that ND preferred independence.
LikeLike
Fair enough, you seem to prefer not to expand at all, and I can understand that.
But many other posters on here seem stuck on UNC, despite the fact that UNC 1) has been pretty bad at football for the past few decades, 2) their tv ratings are just okay, and 3) doesn’t really seem to be significantly better than Stanford and Washington in general.
Would they be a good addition, as far as additions go? Sure, they’d be fine. But they’re not Notre Dame or anything. I’m seeing people say the Big Ten needs to wait 14 years on UNC before making any moves. But there are pieces out there right now that are similarly valuable. And yes, I think there’s a not small chance they don’t even want to go to the Big Ten anyway.
LikeLike
Andy,
I’d revert back to 1983 conference alignment if I could, but that’s not happening. I’m against more expansion unless it serves a strong purpose. ND makes sense. UNC might, for non-athletic reasons. I see a little less value out west due to distance and time zone issues on top of everything else.
People are saying to wait 14 years because of the GOR. They think there is a least a chance the B10 can get UNC. If not, and the B10 still wants/needs to expand then the P12 schools will still be there. But if the B10 fills up on P12 schools and then doesn’t have room when ACC schools become available and express interest, the B10 might regret their decisions.
It comes down to what value you assign to the ACC vs P12 schools for the B10. Reasonable people can disagree on that. If they think that the ACC schools are more valuable, then waiting makes more sense.
I think staying at 16 until ND ever wants to join makes more sense than expanding in either direction. I’d rather leave the ACC and P12 standing than wreck either one.
LikeLike
If expansion is not unlimited shouldn’t Sankey use his surrogates to encourage the B1G to take more PAC teams since the SEC has no interest in any of them? That will lessen the competition for the ACC schools a decade from now.
LikeLike
And I’d love to bring back the old Big 8. Those were fun times. Personally what I would have liked to have seen out of realignment was finding a good home in either the Big Ten or the SEC for at least the main Big 8 schools: Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. Put them all in a pod or division together, and then relive the old Big 8 days. But that wasn’t in the cards, things change. The Big 8 will never come back. And we move on. It does look like Missouri will be paired with Oklahoma again in the SEC so at least that’s something.
I honestly don’t see why UNC/Virginia/Georgia Tech is any more desirable than Stanford/Washington/Oregon (or Cal). They seem pretty similar to me. A bunch of good schools with big markets that are good but not great at sports. If the game is to expand and add a bunch of new markets, both serve that same purpose as far as I can tell. I guess there’s the time zone issue, but I don’t really see it as a big deal.
It really seems like it’s a matter of personal taste more than anything.
If we could unwind this and go back to the way things were that would be great but I don’t see that happening. It looks like expansion is going to happen.
LikeLike
Little8,
“If expansion is not unlimited shouldn’t Sankey use his surrogates to encourage the B1G to take more PAC teams since the SEC has no interest in any of them? That will lessen the competition for the ACC schools a decade from now.”
You mean do things like spread rumors about how all the valuable ACC schools would really prefer to join the SEC? And remind everyone how far it is from NYC to LA? And destabilize the P12 and encourage the B12 to try to raid it for the schools the B10 doesn’t really want?
Certainly nothing like that has been going on at all lately.
LikeLike
I remember many people on here saying (probably hundreds and hundreds of time for years and years) that Texas would definitely prefer the Big Ten and would never, ever consider the SEC and we know how that turned out.
LikeLike
Andy: “I remember many people on here saying that Texas would definitely prefer the Big Ten and would never, ever consider the SEC and we know how that turned out.”
Actually, the DeLoss Dodds brainstorm that screwed up the Big Ten deal and the entire Big XII Conference was the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
Blame what you want but they chose the SEC. They could have joined the Big Ten. The Big Ten absolutely would have taken them. And they chose the SEC in the end. Same will probably happen with UNC.
LikeLike
The Big 10 never made sense for Texas. The sports didn’t make sense. Texas doesn’t play hockey and the Big 10 is not good at most of the spring sports. The rivalries also didn’t make sense. No matter how much Texas “looked” like a Big 10 school academically, athletically it was not a match. And with the new realities and NIL, UT and OU had to make a choice and go to the SEC. The Pac was the academic choice for Texas and it didn’t work out in the past and didn’t make financial sense now. The ACC never made sense on any level.
LikeLike
What, internet speculation and rumors aren’t always correct?
Did anybody claim that a source told them that it was true?
LikeLike
Point is I’ve been reading you guys on here for over a decade. Many of you often speak very confidently of things that you don’t really know about. Texas to the Big Ten is a prime example. That was talked to death on here for years, and it turned out the vast majority of you were dead wrong on that topic.
LikeLike
I think that Texas and Oklahoma decided to leave the Big XII as a pair. Maybe the B1G Presidents were approached but didn’t want Oklahoma. The SEC would take them both so that’s where they headed. In regards to Rutgers, we need to remember that the B1G has a ton of alumni in the NYC metro area. All the Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State fans in the NYC area are the ones increasing the TV ratings — not Rutgers. Bringing the B1G brand to the metro areas for high TV appeal is how to think. That includes Charlottesville and Chapel Hill in the mid 2030’s as well. I think North Carolina and Virginia would make excellent additions to the B1G.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are a ton of Big Ten alumni in the San Fransisco Bay Area. And the San Francisco Bay Area has a population about on par with the state of Virginia. So the same exact logic applies to Stanford and/or Cal.
LikeLike
I remember a lot of MO to the B10 talk that was wrong, too. And P16 talk in the media. And back in the day, all the ND to the B10 talk.
Most realignment speculation is wrong, especially on the internet, and most of it is asserted as gospel.
And try to remember that if you read it here, that was really a handful of people saying it. They may have said it over and over, but it’s a fairly small group that comments here.
LikeLike
Yes, the Missouri to the Big Ten talk ended up not happening. But I remember telling everyone on here about the Missouri to SEC talk I was hearing, and I remember most or all of you didn’t believe it. But that ended up happening. So actually sometimes this kind of talk turns out to be true.
LikeLike
Andy,
“There are a ton of Big Ten alumni in the San Fransisco Bay Area.”
There are at least 1% from each school according to that WSJ data. I’ve never seen an actual number put on it, though. That data was 1-4.9% as a category, so although NYC and SF were both 14/14 on it, NYC could have up to 5 times as many B10 alumni. I know NYC and DC have the most OSU alumni.
https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2012/08/urban_meyer_ohio_state_buckeye.html
According to the Ohio State Alumni Association, there are about 10,000 OSU alumni in Washington, D.C.; 9,100 in New York; 8,500 in Chicago and 7,000 in Los Angeles..
“And the San Francisco Bay Area has a population about on par with the state of Virginia.”
VA has over 8.6M residents. The Bay Area MSA is 4.6M people. The CSA is 9.7M people, but TV doesn’t use CSAs when determining markets. The 9-county area is 7.8M. The full CSA reaches pretty far east, especially if you’re talking about Stanford.
LikeLike
The 7.8 million was the one I was referring to, which is close to the population of Virginia.
I don’t know anything about Ohio State alumni. I’m in the Northwestern Alumni association and I know the SF Bay Area chapter is one of the larger ones.
LikeLike
That makes sense for NW to have many alumni in SF. They go to all the major cities. State school grads tend to stay closer to home.
LikeLike
Hey Andy, I just realized that I use to work with a guy named Phil who went to Mizzou undergrad and got his Econ PhD from NU. He retired recently.
LikeLike
Andy, the problem with your subjective analysis, and with mine, is that there are objective facts which are determinative and which are not at issue. RU and UMd have paid their own weight in the B1G. How many millions of TV homes suddenly became B1G homes when RU and UMd were added? Did Delany see something that others did not?
Do you think that in retrospect the ACC should not have tried to grab RU to get into the NY TV market? Do you think that if RU were on the table and could actually bring NJ and the NYC TV market (more than 9 million TV homes), the ACC would not go to grab that and try to reopen the deal with ESPN? I agree, more subjective analysis, but the results are beyond question.
Similarly absolutely no one (other than you perhaps) believes that Stanford, Washington, and Cal come anywhere close to paying for themselves in the B1G.
How can that be with the populations, etc., that you quote? Very odd. Sort of creates a tiny problem with your determination of value.
You keep quoting the size of CA or the West Coast, ignoring USC and UCLA. Are those two bringing a part of that market that is no longer up for grabs? I do not know, but those pesky financial analyses show that USC and UCLA will pay for themselves. I guess that they must be bringing some part of that market.
Bottom line, subjectively I disagree with you, but the objective facts appear to
favor my argument. If the B1G wishes to be the Ivy with sports, then I
concede your point about the academics.
LikeLike
Rutgers didn’t get a full share in the Big Ten for, what, 9 years or so? They weren’t immediately profitable either. So what if Stanford and Washington have to take a reduced share for a time. There are more people on the west coast than there are in the New York market. And it’s kind of hilarious that Rutgers supposedly brings the New York market when only a very small fraction of people in New York follow Rutgers football. But anyway. Long term it would be beneficial if the Big Ten had the New York market AND the west coast. Do USC and UCLA carry the whole west coast? No way. Would USC and UCLA + Stanford and Washington and possibly Oregon carry it? Definitely yes. We’ll see what they do. It sounds fairly likely they’re going to take some or all of these schools, but we’ll see. If they just want to stay at 16 I’m fine with it. 16 is a manageable number. But if they’re going to go to 20, I say take the west coast.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the reduced share a prorated buy in for the BTN? It was not some sort of limited valuation issue. It was the payment of a loan to buy into the conference network. I dont think the Big Ten has ever really done reduced shares for “less valuable” conference members.
LikeLike
Nick – what’s your sense about what FSU wants?
LikeLike
Nick, apparently UCLA and USC didn’t have to pay it because they are so valuable. So yes, everyone who has had to pay it has done so because of a lack of value. And I’m not 100% certain, but I believe Rutgers’s buy in was larger than Maryland’s because they were considered less valuable than Maryland.
LikeLike
That was the justification, but in reality, they were just trying to get as much from the new schools as they could. Nebraska did a really poor job negotiating. They probably are just now catching up to what they would have earned if they had stayed in the Big 12 all these years. Rutgers had no leverage. Nobody else was interested in them. Maryland got a better deal than Rutgers and probably Nebraska-they were earning more than Nebraska during part of their buy-in.
LikeLike
Alan,
I know some lower level profs, and one fairly large donor. The profs are interested in the BIG, while the donor likes the SEC. It seems like the new president of FSU has a big desire to increase research. Based on that alone, I think FSU would likely be more inclined toward the BIG (but clearly would take the first life raft extended).
My issue with FSU always gets back to the same thing, why would the SEC allow the BIG a flagship in Florida? If they were to admit FSU, the climb in the state of Florida for the BIG would be steep.
LikeLike
Here is what happened with the Rugters and UMd buy in. They both got six year buy ins for a full share of an existing profitable network. That six year period has ended already. Actually both schools now have full shares, but are still in debt to the league.
UMd was already in the ACC and getting paid by the ACC. Their deal was that they would buy into the BTN in six years, but start with more money than the ACC was paying them. UMd also borrowed significant amounts from the B1G and has not fully repaid it yet.
Rutgers got exactly the same deal, expect that it was starting at a much lower base than the ACC was paying UMd and so RU started lower than UMd. Rutgers still started with a huge raise from the AAC income, but there was zero chance to even try to be competitive in the B1G, when twelve schools were getting tens of millions per year in excess of what RU got to start. The result was ongoing loans, which are now being paid at about $10 million per year until 2027.
In any event none of the three schools (NE, UMd, RU) were ever given a smaller than pro rata share of the BTN. They had six year buy ins.
If schools were added now, and given a less than full share, I would imagine that it would be a first for the B1G and possibly any P5 conference.
As to my comments about Stanford, it is not that no one wants them, but for geographical reasons they are isolated, so where can they go? They would fit academically with the ACC or B1G. The Big 12 might (?) be close enough geographically to SF, but is there any chance Stanford would join the Big 12.
Maybe the move is for the ACC to invite Stanford, Cal, and UWash and then move to reopen their ESPN contract. Of course, the three western schools would likely have no financial incentive to go along with that. Therefore, where can Stanford go other than the B1G. Super elite academics, excellent sports, but lousy location (as far as collegiate sports leagues).
Rutgers was in a diametrically opposite position to Stanford. Lousy sports, comparatively mediocre academics, but the prime unclaimed location in the entire country. Also geographically reasonable for the ACC, B1G, and maybe even Big 12. Delany and the powers that be in the B1G made a decision that worked for them.
The ACC had the chance and did nothing and that league is suffering badly. Is there a connection? I do not know. Could it be any worse for the ACC?
At the time that this all happened, I had no idea why the ACC wanted BC or why BC wanted the ACC, but they did it. Obviously as a basketball first league, the ACC took Syracuse, which has not worked out for anyone. They could have had UConn for bball, but FSU and Clemson went nuts and demanded a football school, and Louisville was at its heights in football.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Rutgers didn’t get a full share in the Big Ten for, what, 9 years or so? They weren’t immediately profitable either.”
B10 revenue went up $110M to $449M (+33%) in the first year with UMD and RU. $30M of the increase was from the CFP replacing the BCS, leaving an $80M bump. Some of that was just the natural growth of rights fees, call it $15M. That leaves $65M in growth from adding RU and UMD. Distributions were $32.4M for full share schools, so they more than paid for themselves.
RU didn’t get a full share because they had to buy into the BTN. The B10 schools spent over a century building the brand, while RU was coming from the second tier. The length of their buy in resulted from them shifting some money forward, but it was originally 6 years just like for NE.
But where they really showed their value was in the next TV deal. When they joined, the B10 was on a $1B/10 year deal with ESPN ($100M/yr average). The current deal is $430M/yr. The normal growth in rights is about 50%+, so at least $150-200M would be normal growth. Some could be Fox overpaying to get involved. But a lot of that was adding NYC and DC.
“So what if Stanford and Washington have to take a reduced share for a time.”
So maybe they get angry, unless its a buy-in period.
“There are more people on the west coast than there are in the New York market.”
And there are more people on the east coast than in the SF and Seattle markets combined. What’s your point?
“And it’s kind of hilarious that Rutgers supposedly brings the New York market when only a very small fraction of people in New York follow Rutgers football.”
What’s hilarious is you using this argument to try and boost Stanford. You think they have a huge number of fans in the SF market?
“Long term it would be beneficial if the Big Ten had the New York market AND the west coast.”
And the east coast, and the southeast, and the south, and the southwest. Should the B10 add all the good schools in all of those places, too? Maybe the B10 can become the Big 50.
LikeLike
Andy,
“Nick, apparently UCLA and USC didn’t have to pay it because they are so valuable.”
On Frank’s previous blog post, people worked through the math to show why they didn’t get a buy in.
BTN was roughly valued at $1B, but the B10 owned half of it originally. When 11 schools owned it, that was $45.5M per school. When NE joined, it diluted to $41.7M per school (assuming no value change). That’s $41.7M the other schools lost and wanted paid back. When it went to 14, it dropped to $35.7M per school (again, assuming no value change). That’s $71.4M the other schools lost. But really, we know BTN gained some value with each set of additions and that each new member add some revenue by joining. But still, there was value to pay back.
During COVID, the B10 sold 10% of BTN back to Fox. That dropped each school’s share to $27.9M. Going to 16 drops that to $24.4M each (-$3.5M/school), or $48.8M lost. But USC + UCLA added a lot to the new TV deal. Estimates say it’s at least $200M per year added to a projected $1B/yr deal. $1B/14 = $71.4M. $1.2B/16 = $75M. That’s $3.6M per year gained by every member, so in 1 year they paid for their share. Thus no buy-in period.
“So yes, everyone who has had to pay it has done so because of a lack of value. And I’m not 100% certain, but I believe Rutgers’s buy in was larger than Maryland’s because they were considered less valuable than Maryland.”
Everyone was given a 6 year plan to grow from what they would’ve made in their old conference that first year to an even share. RU and UMD altered their plans to bring some money forward, but that was the basic plan. So yes, RU paid more because they started at the lowest amount. But RU also gained the most by joining the B10, so that seems fair.
LikeLike
bullet,
“That was the justification, but in reality, they were just trying to get as much from the new schools as they could.”
Don’t let reality get in the way of a good story, right?
“Nebraska did a really poor job negotiating. They probably are just now catching up to what they would have earned if they had stayed in the Big 12 all these years.”
Do the math:
Year NE Big Ten full share B12
2010-11 $9.0 $9.0 (B12) $10.0
2011-12 $14.0 $24.7 $19.0
2012-13 $15.4 $25.9 $20.9
2013-14 $16.9 $27.6 $22.0
2014-15 $18.7 $32.4 $23.3
2015-16 $22.0 $34.8 $28.5
2016-17 $36.3 $36.3 $34.8
2017-18 $54.0 $54.0 $36.5
2018-19 $55.6 $55.6 $40.0
NE lost out on about $58.4M (all numbers are ballpark) compared to the B10 full share members. They were down about $27.7M vs staying in the B12 (though that deal would’ve then been worth more) by the time they got a full share. After FY19, they were ahead of where they would’ve been in the B12 by a sizable margin.
I had to use a lot of links to find the revenue data, so I’m sure the numbers aren’t perfect. Also, the B12 revenue wasn’t equal.
“Maryland got a better deal than Rutgers and probably Nebraska-they were earning more than Nebraska during part of their buy-in.”
They all got the same deal: from what they would’ve earned the next year in their old conference on the current TV deal to a full share in 6 years. RU started the lowest, then NE, and UMD had the highest initial payout. Of course NE also diluted the BTN shares the most by being #12. Each subsequent addition has a smaller dilutive effect.
And remember, the B12 put WV and TCU through buy-in periods as well, and they don’t have a network. Do the 4 newbies also ramp up? I don’t remember.
LikeLike
Brian, should the Big Ten add all the good schools in every region and become the Big 50? Of course not. what are the good schools in the Southwest? Meaning large universities with big markets, large enrollments, good academics, that do lots of research, and are good at sports, especially football? Well, that would be Texas, Texas A&M, UCLA, and USC. The Big Ten missed on the first two but landed the second two. Thee midwest? They’ve got that covered. The southeast? The SEC has most of the good ones. There are a few left that the Big Ten might have a shot at but it’ll be tough to get them. So that really only leaves the west and the west coast. Stanford, Washington for sure. Perhaps Cal, Oregon, and Colorado. That’s it. That’s what’s left out there.
The Big Ten could basically just add Stanford, Washington, Notre Dame, UNC, Florida State, Miami and go to 22 and they will have pretty much covered everything. A few more optional adds would be Virginia, Georgia Tech, Duke, Cal, Oregon, Colorado to go to 28. That’s pretty much it. And that’s if they beat out the SEC for every potential team of value, which is highly unlikely.
So no, it wouldn’t go to 50.
As for me talking about taking the west coast and the market of 50 million people out there – the question is how many schools does it take to get there. I think it’s obviously true that USC and UCLA alone doesn’t do it. Add Stanford and Washington and you’re starting to get there. Add Stanford, Washington and Oregon, you’re getting pretty close. Throw in Cal and I think you’ve pretty much wrapped it up. Now granted, that’s 6 schools and Rutgers is only 1 school. But does anyone really think Rutgers delivers New York beyond basically a technicality? They aren’t even remotely popular there. And 50 million people is a lot. That’s the populations of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland combined.
LikeLike
Well its impressive that you found numbers for all those years. I don’t have all of them and I’ve been trying to keep track of it. Sometimes my numbers are a little different, but not significantly. Nebraska also cost themselves $18.5 million in exit fees. TCU and WVU’s buy-in cost them about $20 million total. It cost Rutgers $42 million just in 2017-18 alone.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s exit fees were $9.25 million. I thought that $18.5 was higher than I remembered. That was about what Missouri paid. Read the article wrong.
LikeLike
Andy,
“what are the good schools in the Southwest?”
ASU, UA, and if you include the mountains then CU and UU. I put the TX schools as in the south (TT and UTEP might be exceptions), and the CA schools are pacific coast.
“Thee midwest? They’ve got that covered.”
Missing 1 big one.
“The southeast? The SEC has most of the good ones.”
Miami, FSU, GT, …?
Plus, they could merge. Why have 2 conferences when you can have 1?
“So no, it wouldn’t go to 50.”
I was using 50 more for the number of US states than as a school count.
“As for me talking about taking the west coast and the market of 50 million people out there – the question is how many schools does it take to get there.”
No. The first question is, How much of that does the B10 want? Then, How much of that is it worth chasing? The P12 had it all, but the B10 never will due to distance and not wanting 8+ schools on the pacific coast.
“But does anyone really think Rutgers delivers New York beyond basically a technicality?”
The technicality is what gets the B10 paid.
“They aren’t even remotely popular there. And 50 million people is a lot. That’s the populations of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland combined.”
But there are a lot more CFB fans in the midwest states than in CA. And many of those in CA that are CFB fans wouldn’t be B10 fans (transplants from other areas, fans of other western schools, etc.).
LikeLike
bullet,
Yes, I left out the exit fee. I figured that was a sunk cost of moving. The B10 buy-in didn’t impact it. I was just showing that they earned back their buy-in pretty quickly. Plus they have an asset of a BTN share.
And remember that RU moved their money around, so you can’t just use their reported payouts. You have to go back to the plan the B10 offered them. But it was a heft buy-in. On the other hand, look what they would’ve made in the AAC over that period.
LikeLike
Point is there’s no way the Big Ten would ever go to 50. There are only a few schools that are even close to worth it at this point.
Notre Dame
Florida State
Miami
Stanford
Washington
UNC
Virginia
Georgia Tech
Oregon
Cal
Colorado
Duke
That’s 12. that’s all that’s really even plausible short of raiding the SEC. And of those 12, probably 4 or 5 of them are solidly worth it, another 3 or 4 are marginally worth it, and the rest are a pretty big stretch. Also, the SEC will likely get at least 2 or 3 of them.
So no, there’s not a risk of growing to 50. That’s ridiculous. It’ll probably be 20 and at most 24.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Do you think that in retrospect the ACC should not have tried to grab RU to get into the NY TV market?”
Back in the day, the ACC should have gone from 8 schools to 16 by adding Miami, FSU, VT, WV, Pitt, Penn St, Rutgers and Cuse. But they didn’t.
LikeLike
vp0819,
By commonwealth law, UVA must have at least 2/3 of their undergrads be from VA so they’re generally around 70-75%.
By system policy, UNC limits out of state students to 18% of incoming freshmen.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/no-pac-12-school-is-joining-the-big-12-pac-12-commish-efforts-to-save-a-conference-on-the-brink/
Another Dennis Dodd article.
“…It carries instant updates from a network of Pac-12 presidents, chancellors and athletic directors who now report to him each time a Big 12 school reaches out.
“It gets forwarded to me,” Kliavkoff told CBS Sports. “That’s a constant stream of nonsense. Let’s be very clear. No Pac-12 school is joining the Big 12….”
That day signaled the end of the Pac-12 as we know it. The league will likely survive but only in some altered form.
It could pluck suddenly attractive San Diego State (among others) and become the equivalent of a Mountain West Plus.
It could also stay at 10 teams. One Pac-12 AD told CBS Sports that’s “the best and only option….”
Last year, several Big 12 schools reached out to the Pac-12 after Texas and Oklahoma left for the SEC. None received any traction due to what one Big 12 source called “elitist” Pac-12 presidents.
Now, those presidents are evaluating their options. Sources told CBS Sports the Big 12 is optimistic about their annual media rights being “much bigger” than $30 million per year beginning in 2025. That figure is currently the Pac-12 ceiling with its 10 remaining members, according to industry sources. …”
LikeLike
If Stanford and Washington (and maybe Oregon and/or Cal) join the Big Ten as rumored, the Pac 12 is toast. All of those schools will be begging to get into the Big 12. And they all now it.
LikeLike
I am not so sure the Big Ten is even interested in all those teams.
If you are the Big Ten and you only want Stanford contingent on Notre Dame wanting to join, how do you stop Stanford from having to sign a GOR while Notre Dame decides? Do you leak out that you are interested in all the top brands from the PAC so that Oregon, Washington and Cal also refuse to sign a GOR with Stanford?
The Big Ten will announce its media deal by Labor Day. If they were adding all those teams, wouldn’t they wait to do it? Unless of course you are showing Notre Dame a concrete number they would have to swindle from NBC or CBS to stay competitive. Why then would they dilute that number down by adding 4 more teams giving Notre Dame an easier number to match? The pay out is the only reason Notre Dame would join so the Big Ten would want that as high as possible.
IMO think these leaks are just a ploy to get Notre Dame and Stanford into the Big Ten and Cal, Oregon and Washington will be standing there at the end with mud on their face.
LikeLike
They’re signing a short media deal anyways; I think the Pac-12 is hoping that if they sign a 6 year deal that they might have a window to poach Big 12 teams in 2 years when they have to sign a new deal (if it comes in under the numbers they’re projecting).
Stanford being locked up for any period of time isn’t that big of a deal; can always add them near the end of next GoR.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-betrayal
Some support for that short GOR theory in Canzano’s mailbag. Also some other realignment talk.
Q: What is a realistic Grant of Rights commitment to expect from Oregon/Washington? Will they sign a 5-7 year GOR? Would potential media partners accept a shorter term? — @hamiltonburg
A: I am being told by a multitude of parties — including some on the media partner side — that we should expect the agreement in this cycle to be much shorter than the 12-year deal the conference signed last time. I think it’s reasonable to expect something around four to five years. Commissioner George Kliavkoff told me on Friday that uneven revenue sharing is still on the table, too. That could be an enticement for Oregon and some others.
Q: Should Kliavkoff lock up SDSU, and then try for Texas Tech/Baylor, Oklahoma St, and Kansas? With his #1 criteria being market size, will New Mexico/UNLV likely to be considered over Boise/Fresno because they are top 40 markets? — @bartskee33
A: San Diego State is a no-brainer. Landing it gets you 1.1 million TV households in Southern California. I think UNLV is really, really interesting but I’m not ready to place it as the no-brainer No. 2 option… yet. Pros: There are 758,000 television households — and growing — in Las Vegas. I could see that market reaching 1 million households in a decade and the NFL facilities and sponsorship angles are ample on The Strip. Cons: It has a terrible football program.
…
Q: How does the #Pac12 media valuation change if UCLA stays in the conference? — @CougSutra
A: UCLA brings somewhere between $70 million to $85 million in annual media rights value. An insider told me he thought ESPN might try to make a last-ditch overture to UCLA, offering it a windfall if it stayed in the Pac-12. Nothing is final until the summer of 2024 when the Bruins leave for the Big Ten. Under that UCLA flip-flop scenario, USC would likely go to the Big Ten alone and the Pac-12 would probably try to replace the Trojans with San Diego State. I don’t think UCLA stays in the Pac-12, but I think some interested parties may make a run at it.
LikeLike
When he talks about UCLA maybe not going, he becomes a Greg Swaim level reporter.
You post Greg Swaim just as a joke. Carrazano seems to be in the same category.
LikeLike
bullet,
I agree that stopping UCLA seems like a pie in the sky dream. But I do think the P12 is trying every lever it can find to do that. Kliavkoff talked about it, Newsom would love it, and ESPN might try that if they aren’t buying any B10 rights. But that’s a huge risk by ESPN to alienate the B10.
Like much of this realignment talk, I think it will go away in a couple of weeks. It’s just the rumor of the day.
I included that answer because it gave a value for UCLA, a new fact to add to our databanks.
I thought it even more amusing that he thought USC would go alone if UCLA stayed, not that another P12 school would go instead. Not every state would stop a state school from making more money.
LikeLike
There is a very specific rumor out there, with a version of it popping up in numerous different places, and the common theme is that these schools are going to be added soon, as in by October, before signing GOR. We can all have our opinions on whether the rumor makes sense or not, but it is what it is. And it will either be proven true or untrue very soon.
LikeLike
I would say maybe the rumor is totally false. That’s possible. But at this point it’s very widespread and a lot of people seem to believe it. The good thing is it’s not about something that’s going to happen years from now. If it’s going to happen it’s going to happen soon. So we will get clarity one way or another before too long.
LikeLike
A lot of people believe it, because that’s how rumors spread. It could be true, it could be false, or most likely it’s just speculation that someone turned into “fact.”
LikeLike
And that’s exactly what people said when I came on here 10 years ago and said that I kept hearing Missouri would be going to the SEC. Sometimes these things are true, sometimes they aren’t. Nice thing is we’ll find out soon which one it is.
LikeLike
Andy,
Please correct me if I’m misremembering. But wasn’t Missouri all set to join the BIG and at the last minute they were aced out by Nebraska.
LikeLike
“Please correct me if I’m misremembering. But wasn’t Missouri all set to join the BIG and at the last minute they were aced out by Nebraska.”
The Big Ten had a buy-in for the BTN, the SEC did not.
LikeLike
The B1G chose Nebraska over Missouri. A year later Texas A&M went to the SEC. A few weeks after that Missouri got an invite to the SEC. If the SEC could have convinced Oklahoma (or Texas but they had the LHN issue) to leave after the A&M invite was announced Missouri would not have gotten an invite. Missouri (SEC) and Rutgers (B1G) were even number adds at #14 when the expansions were driven by the #13 adds. Both schools did very well.
LikeLike
No one knows 100% for everything that happened other than a few people who were directly involved. But I’ve spoken to multiple people at Missouri who claim to know things. I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that Missouri was in talks with the Big Ten, to the point where they were hashing out the money side of it. It got far enough to where the Missouri football coaching staff thought it was a “done deal” and that leaked out and the Missouri fans all thought it was going to happen. And then it didn’t. And Nebraska got the spot. One version I heard is that they were going to take Missouri and Nebraska plus maybe more to go to 14 or 16. But then they decided to only go to 12 and Missouri was out. At that point Missouri then went to the SEC. Specifically Missouri’s president went to Florida’s president and asked to get Missouri into the SEC. Florida wanted Missouri in so Florida advocated for Missouri and Missouri ended up getting a spot in the SEC about a year after Nebraska got into the Big Ten. Florida liked that Missouri was in the AAU. Missouri’s 6.2 million population was good for the SEC Network. And at the time Missouri had been regularly winning about 9 games per season on average over the previous several years and had won some division titles. Missouri came into the SEC and ended up winning the East 2 out of their first 3 seasons in the conference. Gary Pinkel got cancer in 2015 and Missouri has been down ever since, but the new football coach has had two straight recruiting classes in the top half of the SEC so there’s hope they’ll maybe start to win again in the coming years.
LikeLike
Flugaur wiith the “why” on adding Stanford/Washiington maybe Oregon/Cal
LikeLike
If the B1G presidents insist Cal join the conference, Berkeley is in. Sorry, haters.
BTW, Cal placed 27th in the Directors Cup for 2021-2022, up from 40th the previous year. The Golden Bears finished ahead of Washington (#30) and Oregon (#31), while SC was #12 and UCLA #15; Stanford placed second to Texas for the second year in a row. (Among B1G members, Michigan was #3, Ohio State #4, Wisconsin #24, Minnesota #28, Northwestern #36, Michigan State #41, Penn State #43, Maryland #46, Rutgers #48, Nebraska #49, Illinois #52, Purdue #53, Iowa #55 and Indiana #64.)
LikeLike
vpo819,
Cal could be the price the BIG pays to keep politicians out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vp0819,
“If the B1G presidents insist Cal join the conference, Berkeley is in.”
Of course. Their opinions are the only ones that actually matter. Nobody disputes that.
It doesn’t mean we think they’re likely to do that.
LikeLike
Don’t forget all the time they spent saying that the B10 is adding the 4 P12 schools rumors were overblown, because of course they are evaluating those schools. They downplayed the odds of that happening.
LikeLike
OK, I just read (and skipped too) that endless discussion on adding which Pac school or not vs which ACC school or not.
Personally, I am all for adding ND, Stanford, Cal, Duke, UVa (and UNC, GTech, UW, Miami, and FSU) to form a league to rival the Ivies academically and SEC in football.
But I also acknowledge reality, and in the real world, the only kings/high princes left not in the B10/SEC are ND, FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Those 4 (certainly ND and FSU) are the only schools that are not dilutive to the B10/SEC as well. And only ND is big enough of a whale where adding them allows you to add multiple dilutive schools without taking a hit.
So I certainly hope that the B10 manages to add ND (also allowing Stanford, UW, and Cal to enter).
That sets up for the 2030’s when the SEC and B10 will battle for FSU. The winner would add Clemson (SEC) or Miami (B10) as a partner. The loser _might_ add Clemson/Miami (the one left out) but possibly not, because all those NC/VA schools are dilutive. The B10/SEC may still decide to add some combo of UNC/Duke/UVa, but it would be for prestige+basketball reasons and not financial ones.
That could set up the B12 to be a basketball powerhouse, however, if they manage to add Arizona, UNC, Duke, Louisville, and Syracuse (among others).
LikeLike
But I could certainly see the SEC grabbing UNC+Duke+UVa along with Clemson even if it’s slightly dilutive because it allows them to say “Look we also have basketball powerhouses (besides UK*) and academic powerhouses (besides Vandy*)”.
Then the B10 would take FSU + Miami to be a truly national conference.
* Alright, I acknowledge that UF and Texas exist too.
LikeLike
Richard, responding to your second post.
Yes, I think if the Big Ten gets FSU and Miami and those are no longer options, then that scenario you mentioned would probably be the SEC’s preferred move. UNC, Virginia, Duke, Clemson.
At that point the SEC would have 8 AAU schools: UNC, Virginia, Duke, Vanderbilt, Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, and Missouri. They could then have a pretty legit claim at being at least a decent conference academically. I think that’s one of the goals the SEC is trying to achieve with expansion. They’ve already added 3 AAU schools and they’d like to add some more if possible.
LikeLike
I think this is pretty much true.
Notre Dame – very additive for the Big Ten or SEC
Florida State – moderately additive
Clemson/Miami – probably net neutral
UNC/Virginia/Stanford/Washington – mildly dilutive
Oregon/Cal/Duke/Georgia Tech – moderately dilutive
I think the Big Ten could add Stanford/Washington and take a small hit financially but add a couple of good schools and markets.
They could add Notre Dame and that would cover the addition of Stanford/Washington plus Oregon and/or Cal
The SEC seemingly wants to add FSU and Clemson to finance adding UNC and Virginia. The Big Ten would also probably like to make that move. They probably won’t both get to make that move, but substitute Miami for Clemson. I’d say the SEC is going to be favored to pull it off, but it’s not impossible that the Big Ten gets them.
LikeLike
Yes, on the ACC front, I could see the B10 left with only the choice of Miami+Duke, which would leave the B10 with a tough decision. Adding them _could_ still make sense when you take in to account all factors, but that pair almost certainly would be dilutive financially.
What we can say with certainty is that how Miami football and Duke basketball perform over the next decade will be tremendously important to the athletic future of those schools.
LikeLike
Mind you, I would add those 2 if they were the only options left (no more FSU, UNC, or UVa) for the B10.
LikeLike
Clemson football too. Whether Clemson football, Miami football, and Duke basketball can show they can consistently be/keep being top 5/10 (at least top 15 as a bare minimum) teams (while keeping their nose clean) over the next decade will have a huge influence on their athletic futures for the rest of this century.
LikeLike
College sports programs tend to revert to the mean. Duke has been a basketball king for many decades, so it probably will continue. Clemson has not historically been a football king. If it reverted to being an upper-middle team, that would not be a shocker.
With Miami, you could argue the mean-reversion has happened already, as they are now almost 20 years removed from their period of competitive relevance. Miami now resembles what Miami used to be before Schnellenberger’s first title.
LikeLike
Most realignment rumors are unreliable, even when they come from the supposedly top-tier reporters. I give Dodds and Wilner more credit than Greg Flugauer and the Dude of WV. Still, I assume most of what they say is untrue unless there is an on-the-record source.
If the Big Ten wanted Stanford and Washington for sure, no matter what anybody else does, then they would be in already—there would be no good reason to wait. As they have not been invited, that tells me another shoe needs to drop, most likely an emerald green one.
LikeLike
Maybe. Or maybe the money side of it is contingent on Notre Dame, but acceptance into the conference is not. Like, maybe they get an 80% share if Notre Dame joins, but if Notre Dame doesn’t join they only get a 50% share, so they need to wait and see which one it will be.
LikeLike
I can think of one good reason to wait: but in. If USC and UCLA get a full share immediately, and you invite other PAC-12 teams at the same time they’ll want / expect a full share as well. Take the other PAC-12 teams after the fact, when they’re desperate because their PAC $$$ are going to go down, and they’ll agree to have a ramped buy in just like Rutgers.
LikeLike
Yes, exactly this. That is the reason. This is how it works. Rumor is the Big Ten was planning on doing this to Missouri, but Missouri got into the SEC as a full member from day 1 so they didn’t need to go that route.
LikeLike
Nathan,
They might expect that, but if you can show them evidence that they are less valuable they can take a lesser payout or not join. It’s not like they have any leverage.
If the B10 really wanted them, they would’ve gotten all of them at once. They could’ve talked about a buy-in from day 1. The previous 3 additions paid one, and they aren’t bigger brands than NE nor bigger markets than NYC. They wouldn’t know what USC and UCLA were getting until after everyone signed – UMD and RU didn’t know each others’ deals in advance.
This delay shows they at best sort of want them, with it contingent on what ND does or on how little they’ll take. That really means you probably shouldn’t add them until/unless ND makes it necessary.
LikeLike
Andy,
Of course MO would’ve had to buy in just like NE did. Why wouldn’t they?
The SEC didn’t have a network to buy into, that’s why they offered a full share from the start.
LikeLike
Yes, Missouri would have had a buy in to the Big Ten. They were very pleased that they got a full share in the SEC from day 1.
This buy in business is a very plausible explanation for why Stanford/Washington maybe Oregon and/or Cal is delayed. That sort of negotiation may take weeks or months. Some are saying that because it isn’t done yet it won’t happen. But that’s not necessarily the case at all. It could be there will be lengthy negotiations before it is finalized in a month or two.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m certain that Stanford/Cal/UW are much more willing to take a long buy-in (and from a lower percentage) after USC showed it was willing to leave the Pac without them than they would have been before.
From a negotiations/money standpoint, if you’re the B10, it’s far better to add Stanford/Cal/UW after you’ve already added USC and UCLA than all together.
LikeLike
Andy,
I don’t think a buy-in would take very long to negotiate since the B10 has the leverage and 3 past versions as precedent. The easiest explanation for the delay is that more important discussions are going on. The B10 deal will be quite complex with multiple networks involved, and getting them all to agree could be challenging. Until the B10 deal is finished, ESPN doesn’t have clarity about what they can/should offer the P12.
LikeLike
And knowing what the Pac 12 offer is would impact the negotiations for that share/buy in schedule would be needed for Stanford/Washington etc. Also Notre Dame’s status could impact that. Also whether Amazon is involved could impact that. Hence me saying it could take several more weeks.
LikeLike
Does the B10 want a long time with junior members? The previous plans were all for 6 years. If they aren’t expected to be worth a full share by then, they shouldn’t be added.
The B10 simply had to make a “take it or leave it” offer. The B10 doesn’t need to add any of these schools, and the schools really want a bigger payout. If the B10 really wanted them, they’d be in already.
LikeLike
That’s all just your opinion. We’ll find out what the Big Ten really wants in the next month or two. I suspect you’re wrong.
LikeLike
Of course it’s all just opinion.
LikeLike
That’s all just your opinion. We’ll find out what the Big Ten really wants in the next month or two. I suspect you’re wrong.
Granted it’s opinion, but there are logic and facts behind it. As far as I can see, all you’ve got are Internet rumors, which could be true but usually are not.
LikeLike
As I said, we’ll find out relatively soon whether the rumors are true or not. It’s not like this is going to drag on for years. Within the next month or two these schools will either join the Big Ten or sign GOR and be locked up for another 5 to 10 years. I get it that some of you are of the opinion that they shouldn’t be added. There are arguments for and against. We’ll find out soon which way it goes.
LikeLike
Also, if we’re getting into opinions, I think it’s kind of funny that so many of you guys are so thrilled at the idea of adding UNC, and yet you turn your noses up at Stanford, Washington, and Cal.
What’s so great about UNC? They have been mostly mediocre to bad at football for the past 30+ years. Yes they have a large market and are good at academics, but Stanford, Washington and Cal are arguably just as good or better at academics and also have large markets.
I would absolutely love it if the SEC would add Stanford, Washington and Cal. They never will because they’re not expanding to the west coast. But the Big Ten already did expand to the west coast, so they can add them. They’re every bit as good as UNC. I guess the main advantage is UNC is good at basketball. But is basketball really that important?
LikeLike
Andy: “What’s so great about UNC? . . . Yes they have a large market and are good at academics.”
I’ve heard their African-American studies are the rave of the campus. Students, including jocks, signing up in large herds.
LikeLike
UNC makes more geographic sense. They are one of the 5 bluebloods in one of the revenue sports. They have a very committed fan base in basketball and a better fan base in football than pretty much anyone in the Pac 10 other than UW.
LikeLike
Yeah, IMO, UW, Stanford, Cal are almost exactly the same as UNC, Duke, UVa, in pretty much everything including in the academic makeup, population & demographics, and value they bring. (Clemson and UO are equivalent, except Clemson sits in much more fertile football recruiting territory)
The only thing that I can think of is that some folks on here are massive college basketball fans, in which case I understand them going gaga over UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I can’t see how you think “geographic sense” matters to the powers that be at all once the B10 added the LA schools.
I think the B10 has as much desire to remain a regional conference as the NFL in the ’40’s.
LikeLike
Also, if we’re getting into opinions, I think it’s kind of funny that so many of you guys are so thrilled at the idea of adding UNC, and yet you turn your noses up at Stanford, Washington, and Cal.
I don’t favor any expansion at all — except that you obviously take Notre Dame if you can get them. Nobody here has turned up their noses at Stanford, Washington, or Cal. Some of us just marvel at your absolute certainty.
In the absence of ND, the question is not just whether a school is in a desirable market, but also whether they deliver that market for television. I suspect the Big Ten has better answers to that question than we do.
Rutgers did deliver its target market, despite a history of being awful at football, so kudos to Jim Delany for getting that one right. Some people probably still wish Rutgers wasn’t in the league, but at least the assumptions turned out to be justified. But remember, that was against the financial expectations of a different time. Rutgers might not get invited today, all else being equal.
Presidents also consider things the fans often don’t, like how much change they want to absorb at one time. They are naturally more cautious and thoughtful than most fans. And nobody is really sure how big they are willing to get. A lot of people here thought 16 was too big—and then it happened.
Because the Western schools have no shot at the SEC, they will always be available. The day UNC joins the SEC, they might be gone forever. Hence, there is an argument for waiting unless any further additions are extremely compelling. The suggestion that the Seattle market is about as good as the NC market is not an argument for taking either one.
No major conference yet has expanded primarily for academics or basketball, so for now any theory premised on those factors needs to be viewed with great skepticism. Of course, everything must have a first time.
LikeLike
Marc: ” I think it’s kind of funny that so many of you guys are so thrilled at the idea of adding UNC, and yet you turn your noses up at Stanford, Washington, and Cal.”
As I posted before, I believe neither is happening. ND isn’t joining a conference and the Big Ten isn’t going to take in Any more ACC schools nor any more Pac-12 schools.
What is taking place right now is that NBC, Notre Dame and the Big Ten are playing high stakes Texas Hold’ em. NBC is in dire need of shoulder programming to shore up ND home football. ND doesn’t want to join the Big Ten but they don’t want a measy $15 million while the B1G rakes in $100 million each. NBC knows that B12 games are virtually worthless as shoulder buddies and the Big Ten also knows this.
All of the talk about further conference expansion for the Big Ten is hogwash.
LikeLike
I’m not certain at all. I just think there’s a decent chance it happens. You all are the ones who seem so certain it won’t happen.
LikeLike
Andy,
“As I said, we’ll find out relatively soon whether the rumors are true or not. It’s not like this is going to drag on for years.”
Yes, that’s true. We’ve already seen several rumors be proven untrue (“X will move to the B12 on Monday” sort of things). Just about everything has been thrown out someone, so one of them has to be correct.
“Within the next month or two these schools will either join the Big Ten or sign GOR and be locked up for another 5 to 10 years.”
Even if they sign, we may never hear what caused the delay or what the chain of events were. People tend not to talk.
“I get it that some of you are of the opinion that they shouldn’t be added.”
Yes, but it’s more that we just don’t give credence to the rumors. We know there is at least some chance the B10 will add them. They aren’t terrible options. We just don’t see a driving need without ND joining.
LikeLike
NBC is in dire need of shoulder programming to shore up ND home football. NBC knows that B12 games are virtually worthless as shoulder buddies and the Big Ten also knows this.
So what is your theory, given your view that ND won’t join a conference. Will NBC pony up $75m despite the lack of good shoulder programming? Will ND accept less? Or something else?
LikeLike
Marc: “So what is your theory, given your view that ND won’t join a conference. Will NBC pony up $75m despite the lack of good shoulder programming? Will ND accept less? Or something else?”
I think that “optimal course of action for the Big Ten” is a better phrase than “theory”. Warren should play hardball with NBC. The network bigly needs the B1G but the B1G doesn’t need NBC at all.
The NBC network has no other viable options. For them, the shoulder progarmming is gonna be either Michigan-Wisconsin or Kansas State- Central Florida.
LikeLike
Andy,
“I think it’s kind of funny that so many of you guys are so thrilled at the idea of adding UNC, and yet you turn your noses up at Stanford, Washington, and Cal.”
I don’t think you are accurately portraying our opinions. z33k is probably the most pro-UNC person here, but others have been much more neutral about adding them. I also don’t think people are turning up their noses at Stanford, UW, and Cal. We just think they don’t bring sufficient financial value to the B10. If there was no practical limit to conference size, travel was instantaneous, everyone could still play each other just as frequently, and revenue was irrelevant, then they’d be great additions.
“What’s so great about UNC?”
Location, population, academics, men’s basketball, keeping them out of the SEC.
“I would absolutely love it if the SEC would add Stanford, Washington and Cal. They never will because they’re not expanding to the west coast.”
Why not? The B10 reaches from the east to west coast. The SEC could as well.
“But the Big Ten already did expand to the west coast, so they can add them. ”
Can is different from should.
“They’re every bit as good as UNC.”
So then the SEC should want them, too. And it’s your opinion that they’re just as good. But you also want UNC to go to the SEC, so maybe you have a little bias in your analysis of what the B10 should do.
LikeLike
If I were running the SEC then I’d add Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington immediately. Then I’d try to get UNC, Duke, Virginia and Florida State.
The SEC doesn’t seem to want to go to the west coast, but if it were up to me they would.
The Big Ten is already there and they’re reportedly taking a hard look at those 4 schools right now. If they decline then I hope the SEC takes them.
LikeLike
Honestly I’m not sure those four schools would agree to join the SEC right now. But if the Big Ten turns them down maybe they would.
LikeLike
Travel for the 14 existing schools is easier with North Carolina and 2 California schools than 3 west coast schools. So unless it is to help USC and UCLA, geography does matter. And the state of North Carolina is more populous than Washington, Oregon or the 4 corners states.
LikeLike
Yes, North Carolina is somewhat larger than Washington. But if you have to add Duke to get UNC then it’s only half of that per school and then Washington becomes the better deal.
LikeLike
So much comes down to timing, too. None of the remaining West Coast 4 or UNC/UVa/Duke/GTech are really definitely worse additions than SCarolina, Arkansas, Mizzou, RU, or UMD, but they didn’t join the B10 or SEC before, and now they have to clear a higher bar. In fact, evidently, UVa and GTech turned down the B10, which, from a 50/100 year perspective, was most definitely a mistake.
LikeLike
Only UVa and UNC offers were certain in 2013. Ga Tech’s may have been contingent on other two saying yes.
But yes Ga Tech in a completely different spot now with cord cutting and UGa even more dominant in state.
LikeLike
I do not understand why everyone thinks that the B1G would want Clemson. Yes, Clemson has been a king in football for a few years. If that could be guaranteed over the next 20 or 30 years, no problem.
Clemson is in small state and is not the flagship school of that state. Even returning to 9 win seasons every year would not make Clemson super attractive.
I am also not sure why the SEC would want Clemson, without being pretty certain that their football fortunes do not decline. The SEC has South Carolina already.
Clemson is also small by B1G standards with about 160,000 alumni and 25,000 students, including grad students.
FSU is very different as Florida is a huge and growing state. At some point in time, FSU is likely to get the right coach and return to elite football. FSU has a great inherent recruiting base in Florida and southern GA.
LikeLike
I agree about Clemson, especially for the B10.
They may or may not make sense for the SEC. It would have to be a gamble that the Gamecocks will never be good, so Clemson can dominate low country recruiting as well as keep harvesting Atlanta. Even if they stay good, I’m not sure they make financial sense for the SEC.
At least FSU would block the B10 in addition to its other value, though even there I’m still doubtful if they add any value.
LikeLike
Who on here thinks the B10 wants Clemson? I certainly don’t.
Clemson is similar to UNL and UO except with the (albeit, extremely important) advantage of being located in the middle of a very fertile recruiting region for football. I suppose it’s possible that the SEC wouldn’t want Clemson either. Ah well, they’d still be able to land in the B12 (and make the Clemson-UO game one of the marquee matchups in the new B12).
LikeLike
What the SEC would like over the next 10-12 years (in decreasing order of probability) is:
1) For Miami to continue its decent to the mean in football making it less of a brand
2) For Clemson to revert to its pre-Dabo mean.
3) For USC (that is South Carolina) to win a national championship or at least get to the playoffs. Given historic performance this is unlikely, but it would diminish the calls to add Clemson. Like the B1G, the SEC does not need a second school in a small state. It already has that in Mississippi (the B1G has the same in Indiana).
LikeLike
Fair point.
The SEC may see adding FSU+UNC+UVa+Duke as the ideal endgame (the last 3 really for prestige, both academic and in basketball, and FSU to at least make the financials somewhat work).
LikeLike
Richard: “The SEC may see adding FSU+UNC+UVa+Duke as the ideal endgame”
The SEC isn’t adding any ACC schools before 2037.
LikeLike
Colin: I didn’t say the endgame has to play out any time soon.
LikeLike
Richard: “I didn’t say the endgame has to play out any time soon.”
Understood. Nonetheless I believe most of us on Frankenstein’s Tank are talking within the time frame of the next few months. What is happening now is a chess game by NBC and ND to create “shoulder programming” to shore up NBC’s increasingly weak telecasts of ND home football. They need the Big Ten but the Big Ten doesn’t need them.
All of the rumors about ND joining a conference or further Big Ten expansion are being floated by NBC, ND and the Big Ten to enhance their bargaining positions.
– ND is not joining a conference.
– The Big Ten is not expanding
– The SEC is not expanding.
– The ACC schools are locked in until 2036.
LikeLike
That sounds like a bunch of opinions stated as fact.
LikeLike
https://www.theepochtimes.com/uc-regents-demand-report-on-impacts-of-ucla-move-to-big-ten-conference_4614220.html
The UC BoR has demanded a report from system president Drake on UCLA’s move to the B10. It is due 8/17.
According to the UC, the report will focus on the following:
* the effect the move will “have on UCLA and other UC campuses’ culture, operations, and finances”
* the impact of the change on “UCLA’s student-athletes, including how the campus plans to address issues related to travel, competition schedules, and academic support”
* the regents’ “delegations of authority as it pertains to athletics operations and recommendations on any updates in policy deemed necessary to ensure proper oversight of major athletics-related decisions”
It seems odd to have Drake in charge of the assessment, especially for point 3. After all, he was informed in advance of this move and chose not to tell the BoR or the governor. Is he likely to come back and say the BoR should take away the autonomy of his campuses?
Point 1 is pretty obvious:
UCLA athletics will have a lot more money, so they don’t have to drop any sports and can improve facilities and support for athletes. Other than that, there isn’t much cultural change other than different uniforms on the opponents. I’m pretty sure UCLA fans can figure out to root against the B10 teams. There should be minimal operational impacts outside of athletic travel.
The key will be to point out that USC is going no matter what, so the P12 contract was going to lose value anyway. The estimate was $500M/12 = $41.7M with all 12, then dropped to $300M/10 = $30M. If UCLA is worth $75M of the $200M lost, that’s $375M/11 = $34.1M. So UCLA moving is only projected to cost Cal about $4.1M per year. Then they can point out Cal’s lack of football and hoops success as a reason the B10 didn’t want them, showing the media analysis which has UW, UO, and Stanford as more desirable options. That’s self-inflicted, not UCLA’s fault. They can also promise to keep playing Cal annually.
They’ve already addressed point 2 a little:
More money pays for more support and better modes of travel. Flights will be longer, but they’ll show how few new, long road trips most athletes will face (some of their teams won’t even be in the B10, many others do group meets and a championship only, and more than half of all games are at home). They can presumably show some basic scheduling concepts, like being travel partners with USC and picking optimal days for their games on road trips. And they could use Zoom and things for some remote academic support on the road pretty easily. I’m sure they could even use classrooms on the road.
LikeLike
If ND cannot break its contracts with the ACC, there may be a halfway house. ND can freely schedule 7 football games a year. Suppose they contract with the B1G for 5 of them, without actually joining the B1G. They might get a guarantee for USC, Michigan, and Michigan St., and rotate the other 2 games around the rest of the B1G.
ND would still have 2 “OOC” games for teams like Navy and Texas, and they would still be in compliance with their ACC commitments.
I wonder how NBC would react. Certainly, ND vs. USC, MI, and MSU would be attractive, and so would ND vs. Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn State, maybe even Purdue.
In 2036, the real move into the B1G would be pain free. Of course, ND (and NBC) might decide they like the half way house better.
LikeLike
Purdue and Notre Dame are currently scheduled for 2024, 25, 26, 27 and 28.
LikeLike
Until recently, ND had played Purdue more than any other school. They are only an hour’s drive apart. According to Purdue legend, “The Boilermakers” was coined as a term of derision by the Irish, but Purdue liked it.
LikeLike
I feel like the fall of the ACC is like the fall of Osaka Castle and the Toyotomi clan. After Sekigahara, Tokugawa becoming shogun and the fall of Toyotomi was inevitable, but it still took 14 years for the Siege of Osaka Castle to commence (15 years for Osaka Castle and the Toyotomi clan to be destroyed).
LikeLike
There certainly is a lot of talk out there tgat it will take less than that. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
LikeLike
Hmm, you make be right.
Let’s game this out:
FSU will have a landing spot in the B10 or SEC.
Clemson (SEC) and Miami (B10) have landing spots too (the B12 at worst).
UNC/UVa/Duke may have landing spots in the B10/SEC but would have the B12 at worst.
The key schools are the middle class of Louisville/Syracuse/VTech/NCSU/Pitt/GTech (and maybe BC). If the B12 is willing to offer landing spots for them (getting the same money), they may pull the trigger on ACC dissolution, and the B12 has an incentive to knock out all the conferences below the P2 and above the G5. Having a much smaller payout, those schools probably bring enough value to the B12 as well. And consolidating in to 3 super conferences (the P2 and the B12) with the only football content worth watching means more bargaining power for the 3 remaining superconferences.
LikeLike
That’s pretty much what most of the rumors making the rounds are saying. Versions of that. Time will tell.
LikeLike
BTW. That’s doesn’t mean the Pac and ACC will cease to exist. Sh*t always rolls downhill. So the remnants of the Pac (OrSt and maybe WSU and/or Utah?) will cannabilize the MWC en masse. The remnants of the ACC (Wake and BC?) will cannibalize whatever’s out east en masse.
They won’t be power conferences any more, though.
LikeLike
Well, the rumor (it’s from Greg Swaim so 99.99% chance of being wrong) is that the TV partners are pushing the B10 to take the 4 P12 schools, then the 4 corners schools want the B12 to take the remaining 6, not just 4.
It makes no sense to me why the B12 would take OrSU and WSU unless the TV partners wanted to pay them to do so. Even then, the travel and lack of markets or brands wouldn’t make sense.
If the 4 go to the B10, I could see the 4 to the B12 as an option. It should pay better than a P12 remnants/MWC mashup would. Then the last 2 keep the P12 shell and bring in the MWC.
LikeLike
Actually, Utah is in bigger danger than WSU, definitely, and possibly even OrSt.
The B12 already has the state of UT (it won’t have WA if UW joins the B10).
WSU and OrSt. actually aren’t at the bottom of the Pac in terms of viewership/support. The 4 corners schools have pretty unencouraging viewership.
LikeLike
Haven’t read Swaim in a while so I checked it out. Looks like as of a week or two ago he didn’t think the Big Ten would add Washington or Oregon, but now he’s out there promoting the latest rumors that Washington/Oregon/Stanford/Cal are all headed for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
It makes no sense to me why the B12 would take OrSU and WSU unless the TV partners wanted to pay them to do so.
In the Mandel stats, WSU had pretty good TV ratings. Oregon State was pretty lame, though.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Actually, Utah is in bigger danger than WSU, definitely, and possibly even OrSt.”
You can make that argument, but I think UU’s better academics and location will help them. Travel to WSU is a nightmare. Plus UU adds some rivalries.
“WSU and OrSt. actually aren’t at the bottom of the Pac in terms of viewership/support. The 4 corners schools have pretty unencouraging viewership.”
I’ll give you WSU does okay in viewers. OrSU? They were way behind UU, CU, UA, and ASU in Andy Staples’ list of 1M viewer games. They were also last n the P12 in Mandel’s average viewers list.
LikeLike
Given enough time, Swaim will probably present every possible position. That way he has to be right at least once.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, WSU does okay in viewership. But travel is a big issue with them. It’s far away and hard to get to/from. Without a big market/large state like UCF, I just don’t see it.
LikeLike
Even if the expanded B12 doesn’t add UNC and Duke, with Syracuse, Louisville, Arizona, and others added to the B12, the B12 would be a very strong basketball conference. The B12 may set up a challenge series with the BE/WCC combo (by that point, the B12 would be roughly the size of the BE+WCC).
December could end with 2 exciting basketball challenge series before conference play starts.
Heck, in football, on the field, the expanded B12 (by then a national conference in all regions of the country like the B10) promises to be exciting too, featuring conference matchups like UO vs VTech.
LikeLike
https://www.al.com/news/2022/07/theres-1-college-football-team-more-popular-than-the-crimson-tide-heres-who-it-is.html
Here’s another highly flawed study of how popular CFB teams are that people will read way too much into.
Number of fans by school:
ACC – FSU, 2.7M; Duke, 2.6M; UNC, 1.9M; Boston College, 1.5M; Georgia Tech, 1.4M; Clemson, 1.5M and Miami 1.1M
Big 12 – Texas, 3.1M; Oklahoma, 1.7M; Kansas, 1M
Big Ten – Ohio State, 6.3M; Penn State, 4M; Michigan State, 2.9M; Michigan, 2.9M; Illinois, 1.7M; Wisconsin, 1.6M; Minnesota, 1.4M; Iowa, 1.3M; Nebraska, 1.2M
Pac 12 – UCLA, 2.7M; Arizona State, 1.5M; USC, 1.5M
SEC – Alabama, 4.1M; Georgia, 2.8M; LSU, 2.3M; Florida, 2.1M; Auburn, 2M; Texas A&M, 2M; Kentucky, 1.5M; Tennessee 1.3M; Missouri, 1.1M; Arkansas, 1.1M
Notre Dame – 3.5M
LikeLike
Some of those numbers seem obviously wrong (especially even lower down the list) but ND and FSU being the most valuable schools left on the board (and the least valuable P5 schools being Wake and Vandy) are believable.
LikeLike
BTW, it seems like they are adding football and basketball fans together, but football is considerably more valuable than basketball.
LikeLike
One of the rumors/speculations out there is that the P12 will take a sizable streaming deal with Apple or Amazon as part of their new deal. It could make sense in many ways for both sides.
It got me thinking about the P12’s efforts under Scott to globalize the P12 by reaching out to Asia. Lots of schools already do this, but not so much with athletics.
Basketball is huge in China. Soccer is huge almost everywhere but the US. Baseball is big in much of Latin America. How much of an untapped market are certain international rights to college sports? It certainly would make sense to use streaming for that, and Apple and Amazon know about global reach and marketing better than most. It’s also tremendous advertising to potential international students to get the names and strengths of US universities out there.
With the additions of USC and UCLA, the B10 is gaining a much stronger connection to Asia than most midwestern schools have (for obvious reasons).
I know at least some college games are already available overseas, but I don’t get the feeling this aspect has gotten much focus. I know there are lots of pro leagues that are better, so I’m not thinking there are billions to be made on this. But with the financial importance of international students, this seems like an underutilized resource to me.
How should the B10 (and other conferences) try to take better advantage of this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_football_games_played_outside_the_United_States
Some CFB games have been played internationally, and plenty of hoops teams have gone on international tours. I’m mostly thinking about how to use the existing games.
LikeLike
So, I can forgive you for not knowing this since you don’t live in the Midwest now, but some of the American schools with the most Asian students (foreign students from Asia) are B10 schools. UIUC, PU. I believe MSU too.
Anyway, overseas, folks with no connection to US colleges are almost certainly looking for the best exemplars of the sports they are interested in. NBA for basketball, various European leagues for soccer, MLB for baseball (heck, college soccer and college baseball barely draw any eyeballs in the States). Some of the alums may stay interested in the sports of their alma mater, and sure, you’ll get viewers from all over the world, but it’s not a huge number.
LikeLike
https://www.statista.com/statistics/237695/international-students-in-us-universities/
The old B10 actually has more schools in the top 20 colleges with the most foreign students (4) than the Pac left-overs. Add USC and UCLA and the B10 would have the majority of FBS schools on that list.
LikeLike
I know there are many Asian students in the B10. Lately the number has dropped off (particularly from China) for many schools, which means they need to be recruited.
I just remember Larry Scott making an explicit effort to push this at the P12 level rather than individual schools. UCLA was one of the schools that I recall had some strong connections to China.
As I noted, I don’t think there is big TV money in this. We talk about that all the time. I’m just wondering how they can use it better. It’s a tool.
Having that many schools with lots of foreign students makes it a stronger option. Get more (or better if you don’t want more) students using it.
LikeLike
Yeah, and that has been critiqued by some as one of the flaws of Larry Scott: Instead of trying to grow support for the Pac/PTN in its home grounds (which was of fundamental importance), he was off chasing empheral fairy dust in Asia, losing USC and UCLA for his efforts.
LikeLike
A good commissioner should be able to do more than one thing at a time.
LikeLike
Brian: “How should the B10 (and other conferences) try to take better advantage of this?”
Nebraska and Northwestern open the season in Dublin, Ireland.
LikeLike
Yes, and CFB can piggyback on the NFL and NBA and MLB pushing their leagues globally. The top college brands have a lot of the athletes that will be in the those leagues soon.
LikeLike
On a totally irrelevant but somewhat amusing front, the NY Times is reporting that Rutgers is in the hunt to recruit Bronny James, who is not a superstar, but is a four star in the top 40 players in his class. It seems that Bronny is interested since Coach Pikiell is developing a reputation of taking lightly regarding recruits and developing them.
It would be an interesting twist for LeBron James to be hanging around RU basketball. Bronny is already primed to receive major NIL dollars. I wonder why.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2022/07/31/kenan-thompson-lorne-michaels-end-snl/10196149002/
Some people have argued NBC doesn’t want prime time non-ND games (let alone late night) because SNL makes more money for them than any B12 or P12 game might.
Well, the rumors are that SNL will end in 3 years. Then NBC would need something to air.
LikeLike
I think that as long as Lorne Michaels allows someone else to take over SNL when he retires, NBC is going to *try* to keep it going by any means possible. (Maybe it goes into the hands of someone like Seth Meyers.)
To put it into perspective, SNL has been the number one non-sports entertainment show on all of TV in the age 18-49 demo (AKA the viewers that advertisers care about) for the past few years. That’s pretty astounding considering that it’s on at 11:30 pm ET on Saturday night, which is the least-watched night on TV as a general matter.
The main thing is right in the name of the show – it’s Saturday Night *Live*, which is something that it has in common with sports. Who knows how good the show will be after Lorne, but there’s little doubt NBC will do everything they can to make it worth. It might be the last entertainment franchise of any real value on network TV.
LikeLike
Right, NBC will try to milk SNL as long as possible if possible.
LikeLike
I hope NBC’s pitch to ND doesn’t involve Peacock, which just had a disastrous quarter. It netted no paying subs in Q2, and has lost nearly 2.5 billion dollars this year alone. Comcast’s broadband subs were also flat. Peacock does have a few interesting projects in the works, but unless they can turn it around quickly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Comcast decides to cut their losses and shutter it.
LikeLike
Lousy article! How do you NOT mention John Belushi????
LikeLike
Some people have argued NBC doesn’t want prime time non-ND games (let alone late night) because SNL makes more money for them than any B12 or P12 game might.
A 7:30pm game (which is when all of ND’s night games start) would be pretty unlikely to conflict with SNL. They could even show Pac-12 after dark games on SNL’s hiatus weeks. In recent years, SNL has premiered on the first Saturday in October, and thereafter they usually run a 2-on, 1-off, pattern. So there are quite a few weeks of the season when there would be no conflict at all.
LikeLike
Another possible scenario (not my ideal one):
Adding ND allows the B10 to add Stanford+Cal+UW this round (I think the B10 presidents would like to add Stanford+Cal if they can make the numbers work.
6 of the remaining 7 get taken in by the B12 (I think UO gets OrSt in; WSU left out?)
Wake keeps the ACC from being blown up this round but eventually Osaka Castle falls. The SEC manages to take its ideal collection of FSU+UNC+UVa+Duke. The B10 takes a hard look at Miami but passes (Miami+GTech is attractive in many aspects but just doesn’t make sense financially).
Take a look at the SEC and B10 footprints in that scenario and compare to the map of free and slave states in 1860.
BTW, I think the B12 takes everybody left but Wake from the ACC in that case, and adds one more (WSU finally in? USF? Memphis?). B12 becomes the B28.
If the B10 does eventually want to expand due to demographic concerns to go to 22, they’d take Miami+ASU.
BTW, even without Duke+UVa, the top of the B10 would rival the Ivy League academically. B10 would have 8 of the 18 top feeders to top MBA programs, besting the Ivy League at 6 and 6/17 top feeders to the T14 law schools, tying the Ivies. Duke+UVa would bump that up to 10/18 and 8/17 or more than half of the top feeders to top MBA and JD programs.
LikeLike
Or the B10 wins Duke+UVa and adds Miami + GTech too while UNC demands a rival come along so the SEC adds FSU+UNC+NCSU+VTech.
I don’t know how the B10 would make the financials work in that case, but it’s likely that ND and the rest of the B10 would desire to add some southern exposure for recruiting purposes (football but also OOS students for the state schools).
LikeLike
I can imagine a UVa/UNC pairing (no Duke).
I can’t quite imagine a UNC/Duke pairing (no UVa).
I certainly can’t imagine a UVa/Duke pairing (no UNC).
More likely, all three go in together; they are the emotional core of the ACC, especially since N.C. State has receded.
LikeLike
Honestly, none of the NC/VA schools are additive to the B10 or SEC these days. Both leagues would only add them for prestige/nonfinancial reasons, but not sure how they could make the financials work.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten really did take 3 more Pac schools, I agree the rest (except WSU) would very likely merge with the Big XII, which takes that league up to 18.
I cannot see a reason why the Big XII would absorb all of the ACC remnants minus Wake Forest. Syracuse and Boston College are utterly useless to the Big XII, and neither of them has a “big brother” school that will insist on bringing them along. All of the others, I can see a justification for, though a few are marginal.
Or the B10 wins Duke+UVa….
Like @vp0819, I cannot see the Big Ten being interested in Duke or Virginia without UNC. I would expect UNC, Duke, and Virginia to stay together. As neither league is likely to want three members in the state of North Carolina, most likely it is N.C. State that gets kicked to the curb.
LikeLike
Syracuse is a king in basketball and has a decent-sized fanbase. They’re comparable to KU (and Louisville). BC is a small private, sure, but is in the large Boston market. They’re comparable to TCU.
It’s possible that the B12 would reject them but remember that the B12 payout hurdle is much easier to meet, and those schools are not “utterly useless”.
LikeLike
SU under Boeheim (since 1976) is certainly a top program. Once he retires in the very near future? Look how UConn dropped off after Calhoun, IU after Knight, etc. I don’t think it can be assumed that SU will be like UNC, KU, or UNC and just get hall of fame coach after hall of fame coach.
Duke faces similar concerns, but they were really good for at least 30 years before Coach K and much better under Coach K than SU was under Boeheim.
LikeLike
SU is one of the programs at the very top of basketball revenues:
https://money.yahoo.com/richest-college-basketball-programs-america-210045624.html
So I don’t think there will be a drop off. They’ll be as fine as UNC/Duke/UK.
UConn actually never had great basketball revenues; Calhoun just overacheived a lot.
LikeLike
Syracuse is good, but they are not a king and not comparable to UK, KU,UNC, Duke and UCLA.
They have 6 finals 4s. That puts them in a big tie for 11th, with Michigan, Arkansas, Houston, Cincinnati, Oklahoma St., and Villanova.
LikeLike
The USC/UCLA additions probably changes the calculus slightly though I agree with you two that in all likelihood, UNC/UVA and Duke will stay together.
With USC/UCLA, you open up to pairs that build on both coasts.
If UVA and UNC split, UVA could join Big Ten with Washington for example.
UVA+ Washington would build on both coasts and likely Big Ten could get TV contracts increased pro-rata for those 2 as large state flagships.
Of course, it’s an academic exercise since UNC and UVA will likely be in close contact throughout any process like this.
LikeLike
Note what was paired with “utterly useless”: “to the Big XII”. They are, of course, wonderful institutions. But no P5 conference yet has expanded for basketball, which knocks out Syracuse. BC is in a large market, but it’s dubious that they deliver that market for television.
To say a school is “comparable to Kansas” is damning with faint praise. KU might be the school least likely to get a Big XII invitation if it were not already in the league. Their TV ratings for football (the only sport that drives expansion) are abysmal. Any school seeking to join needs to be way better than Kansas, not merely comparable to it.
Louisville had a great run of football dominance from about 2000–2012. Luckily for them, those were their most recent results when they joined the ACC, which came very close to offering UConn instead. Since then, Louisville has reverted to their historical norm: a middling football program at an academically weak commuter school in a basketball state. If that is still true in the 2030s, I doubt the Big XII wants them.
We are talking layers of hypotheticals, but I would expect the Big XII to expand like everyone does: adding only those schools that materially raise the payout for everyone else. Many of the ACC remnants don’t do that.
LikeLike
Marc: You ignore recent history. Or are you saying that the ACC isn’t a P5 conference? Because the ACC took both BC and later Syracuse.
KU, BTW, actually had one of the most valuable third-tier rights in the B12 after Texas and maybe OU, I believe, so your estimation of the worth of basketball to a conference at the B12 level is wrong.
LikeLike
@Richard: I will assume for argument’s sake that the ACC’s additions were good decisions at the time they made them. But the expansions that made sense years ago for a dissolving conference aren’t necessarily right decades later for a different one.
It is true that KU had one of the highest third-tier payouts in the Big XII. But they are called third tier for a reason. They are a lot less valuable than the first and second tiers. I cannot think of a P5 expansion that was done for basketball.
In your scenario, the top 5 ACC programs are gone. I would love to see the data showing that numbers 6 to 14 have as much residual value as you are imagining.
LikeLike
So basically, you’re hand-waving instead of admitting that you’re wrong.
The fact of the matter is that the ACC took both Syracuse and BC, and the ACC that took both those schools was actually stronger than the current B12. So if anything, the currently B12 would gladly take them (at least Syracuse; small privates like BC may have dropped in value). And yes, in this scenario, the “top” ACC schools would be taken, but really only FSU is valuable. I’ve already stated that it doesn’t make financial sense for the SEC or B10 to add UNC/Duke/UVa (and possibly not Clemson or Miami either) but they (especially the SEC) may still do so anyway (taking a financial hit) for prestige reasons. Most of the ACC is about the same in value. There’s really only FSU at the top and Wake far below. And we know that the ACC average is about the same as the B12 average. Plus, didn’t we agree that the ACC is undervalued as a whole? That means even after some of the “top” schools are taken, most of the rest still have value to the B12. Now, it’s possible that the B10/SEC doesn’t take UNC/Duke/UVa and the ACC just limps along minus 2 schools, but if the SEC/B10 does raid the heart of the ACC for prestige reasons, there’s no reason why the rest (minus Wake) wouldn’t find a home in the B12.
LikeLike
The fact of the matter is that the ACC took both Syracuse and BC, and the ACC that took both those schools was actually stronger than the current B12.
That is not the scenario we are evaluating. In your scenario, the current Big XII has already grown by a further six. The question is whether that 18-team conference would consider No’s 6–14 of the ACC a net improvement.
…we know that the ACC average is about the same as the B12 average.
Which is why they wouldn’t take them. Conferences expand to get better, not to tread water. And in your hypothetical, the ACC average would have gone down, since you would have removed its five best members.
Plus, didn’t we agree that the ACC is undervalued as a whole?
The ACC is underpaid because their last commissioner locked them into a 20-year deal. In 14 years (when this would all be taking place), the Big XII will be making more, because it will have gone to market, probably twice, while the ACC stood still. Also, in your hypothetical the Big XII would have added a number of pretty good Pac-12 schools, which I am assuming are a net positive for them—else, why do it?—while the ACC has no such opportunity.
LikeLike
Marc: when the major conferences are down to the P2, expanded B12, and lessened ACC, the B12 would expand to gain market power. There’s bargaining power in collecting all the decent programs outside the P2.
LikeLike
But at least State has an alternative in the SEC, which could make some inroads in Virginia/NC by taking in the Wolfpack and Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-ucla-gone-yup-but-pac-12
A mix of realism and wishful thinking from Canzano (as usual), but he has some relevant quotes.
I want to stop right here and point out that in no way do I expect UCLA to reverse course and announce it will rejoin the Pac-12. That would require a series of wild events to occur. Also, it would potentially come with a damaging public relations hit to the Bruins. But it’s something I left Media Day thinking about.
Add San Diego State? Poach Baylor or Houston? How about UNLV? There are a variety of options that need exploring. One of them involves the possibility that the Pac-12 might give UCLA second thoughts.
Said one person familiar with the situation: “The not-so-hidden question is UCLA. The Pac-12 won’t move on expansion until that’s decided.”
The Regents of the University of California system may have a say. That mostly feels like political posturing, though. One UCLA official, in fact, told me, “All that is just a bunch of noise.” In the meantime, I wonder whether the Pac-12 is asking bidders on the conference’s media rights to run valuation models that includes UCLA and/or USC staying.
…
Former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson told me that prior to the defections of USC and UCLA, he expected the Pac-12 would sign a media rights deal worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million a year. That would result in annual distributions of roughly $42 million to each Pac-12 university. In the Big Ten, the Bruins and Trojans are expected to collect a minimum of $72 million a year.
That’s a $30 million-a-year gap, minimally.
Could the Pac-12 go all-in, get creative, sell off the Pac-12 Networks, and cobble together a media rights package that would push above $60 million a year in distributions and give UCLA and/or USC something to think about?
No, they couldn’t. $30M will be tough, $40M would be a minor miracle. They aren’t getting an almost 50% raise above the deal that was expected when USC and UCLA were still there.
They could do unequal revenue to get 1 or 2 schools there, but only with a lot of grumbling from others.
Expanding with San Diego State and maybe one or three others is a decent fallback plan. It would aggregate some additional dollars and get the conference back in Southern California. Mining the landscape for new partners, such as Amazon, Apple and Turner is sound strategy, too. There are some new media players at the table and they may have a pile of money to spend with Fox and ESPN gobbling up so much of the Big Ten and SEC. …
…
Stanford coach David Shaw told me he thinks geography will ultimately win out. Shaw said he believed the traditional Pac-12 universities would one day be re-united. Perhaps, in five years, or maybe a decade, when the media rights deals come up for bid again.
“Who knows what’s going to happen in the next couple of years, but my heart of hearts tells me that in some point of time this will self correct,” Shaw said. “The reason conferences were created were proximity reasons… I do believe in the next round of TV contracts, it will start to go back.”
It sounds like a pipe dream, but I left Friday’s Pac-12 Media Day wondering about UCLA’s next 24 months. USC may leave regardless of the media numbers. But we all noted that Kliavkoff was collegial toward both the Bruins and Trojans in his remarks.
If/when 1 superleague is formed, then it can be broken into divisions that restore the traditional P12 schools and other geographic groupings. But it’s not happening under the current system.
LikeLike
I think there is a decent likelihood that a majority of the old Pac8 will be reunited (the CA Pac schools + UW) in the B10.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like Colorado brought a bunch of that wacky weed to Pac 12 media days. AAC raiding the Big 12 was a lot more realistic than the things they are talking about. Pac 10 are still in the denial phase.
LikeLike
Articles like this seldom reflect the true views of the whole conference. Canzano can only quote the people willing to talk to him. A talkative person with a contrarian view might make the story more entertaining, but that doesn’t mean most of their colleagues agree.
LikeLike
It’s why the B1G may head the UC Regents off st the pass by soon inviting Berkeley, making any Pac plans moot.
LikeLike
It’s a 50-year decision. If they take Cal, it will be because they want Cal, not because a few politicians spooked them into it.
LikeLike
If the UC Regents somehow manage to mess up UCLA, which I doubt, I think the next move would be largely influenced by USC, but adding Cal may be too financially dilutive.
Obviously there are big travel advantages for everyone with two LA schools. Notwithstanding this, the cost of taking the three schools may not make sense. Would that “force” the B1G to take a 4th school that the B1G does not want at this time?
The solution might just as easily to invite Stanford and totally ignore the U of Cal system.
Then the Regents can explain why UCLA cut several sports to meet their budget gap. Conversations about eliminating sports are great fun for university athletic departments, but in this case UCLA can refer those ugly questions to Gov Newsome and the Regents.
LikeLike
The amount of money seems large, unless compared to something way larger. Is the difference of 40-50 mil really worth the divisive result for all alumni, history, tradition? UCLA budget last year was nine thousand two hundred million dollars.
University of California, Los Angeles
Former names Southern Branch of the California State Normal School (1881–1887) Southern Branch of the State Normal School (1887–1919) Southern Branch of the University of California (1919–1927) University of California at Los Angeles (1927–1958)
Budget $9.2 billion (2021)
Do the Bruins really expect to suddenly become a powerhouse with X number more dollars thrown into FB, or just have a much more expensive mediocrity?
LikeLike
I think they expect to be able to pay off their $100M in athletic debt, avoid cutting multiple sports, renovate aging facilities, improve athlete support, keep up with the ever-increasing costs associated with college sports (coaches salaries, staff, technology, etc.), and be able to stay competitive in CFB and be a MBB power.
Without the move to the B10, they would need funds from another source to make all that happen. Would the state step up and provide it? Would the academic side just cover it like they’ve been doing at Cal? Should students have to pay a lot more fees? Are the alumni going to donate that much?
While it’s fun to compare $50M to the entire UCLA budget, it’s pointless. UCLA’s athletic budget is about $127M. They had run up over $100M in debt in the preceding 3 years (over $40M in the 2 years before COVID, over $60M during COVID). Their position was unsustainable. Even with B10 money, it will take years to pay off their debt.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/byu/football/tracking-the-latest-college-football-conference-realignment-rumors
An expansion rumor-tracking site. It puts them all in one place for you, and in chronological order.
LikeLike
https://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/
A fun tool to see where people and their money have moved to/from since 1985 (people) or 1992 (wealth), based on IRS information with bar graphs showing the annual changes. You can see it at the state or county level, in population or wealth. Unfortunately all the data is at the same level, so it’s the top 5 state to state of top 5 county to county. At the county level, that means you see a lot of intrastate movement plus the counties of the biggest cities (Cook County, Los Angeles County, etc.).
It’s not just alumni, but it probably gives a decent idea of where B10 alumni/fans have gone.
Basically, the south (except LA, OK) and west (except CA, NM) are gaining – no news there.
LikeLike
Very interesting. Of note, Dallas County, Harris County (Houston) and Miami-Dade County all lost wealth, mostly to their suburban counties. While Fulton (Atlanta) had a small gain, 3 of the other 4 core counties, Dekalb-which has part of Atlanta), Cobb (which has the Braves) and Clayton (which has the airport) all lost wealth. That despite Texas, Florida and Georgia all gaining a lot of wealth, Only 5 of the top 15 MSAs gained population in the last year (Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Riverside and Phoenix). New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco were all big losers.
LikeLike
Bill DeBlasio was probably the worst mayor in the history of NYC. He was term limited last year so he is out. When he was making moves to which many upper income NYers vociferously objected, his response was “if you do not like it, move. NYC will replace you.” These were projects like homeless shelters near schools in the middle of otherwise middle class plus neighborhoods.
A fair number of people took DeBlasio’s advice and left NY.
Then NY State passed zero bail laws and DAs do not want to prosecute anyway, so NYC is slowly going back to the bad old days and more people are getting out of town.
By the way, DeBlasio was correct, many new people moved to NYC. Of course, upper middle class and wealthy NYers moved out and very poor people moved in. Does not do much for the local economy.
I remember 42nd Street back in the 1960s and 1970s. Fun area.
Being able to work remotely has only accelerated the trend.
LikeLike
The Curley Effect is the term political scientists use to describe DeBlasio’s strategy.
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/66186.html
Perhaps Frank remembers Hellen Schiller, an alderman from a neighborhood just north of Lincoln Park (Uptown) who practiced a similar localized strategy for 20+ years?
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3462837/2022/07/30/ncaa-transfer-rules/
The unlimited transfer bill is unlikely to pass.
Presidents on both the Transformation Committee and Board have expressed concerns regarding the possibility of unlimited transfers, sources said. There also has been a great deal of public pushback from football and men’s basketball coaches who believe it will make it nearly impossible to manage rosters.
…
But there remain concerns about the impact of transferring on academic success and athletes’ ability to graduate. And there is not yet a great deal of data on the topic one year into the NIL era, coupled with the one-time transfer.
Multiple sources told The Athletic that they expect the elimination of the one-time transfer rule to be sent back to the Transformation Committee and/or the Council by the Board at its meeting this week because it would be unlikely to pass if taken to a vote. Two sources expect that the Board would send back the entire transfer package (including transfer windows and the financial aid piece) because, as one said, “it doesn’t really work piecemeal.” Another pointed out that if the Board only adds restrictions to athletes’ ability to transfer without opening up any opportunities, it potentially sets the NCAA up for more lawsuits.
One source said it’s possible that the Board could send back the one-time transfer rule but still vote on transfer windows and/or the financial aid component — “it’s all very fluid,” the person said — because the Board has signaled a willingness to do something in this space. It is also a hot-button issue purposely included in the first wave of recommendations from the Transformation Committee to show that the group is prepared to both address potential antitrust issues and also empower athletes in a changing landscape.
“It’s probably best as a whole package, but it would at least be a half-step,” one source said.
LikeLike
The pre-portal transfer rules were corrupt and unfair, but I didn’t expect the rules to change quite so fast.
I suspect “one free transfer” is enough to satisfy the needs of >95% of the athletes. High school kids are sometimes sold a load of crap by coaches hawking snake oil. And of course, the coach can leave the school 5 minutes after getting a signed LOI. But after you have already transferred once, and it is still not working out, perhaps more controls are needed the second time.
LikeLike
The covid year is a big reason why the landscape has changed as well. Kids had to commit to a school without being able to visit in person. Then when they arrive, kids who should have graduated and freed up playing time still had eligibility. And by getting 5 years of eligibility, it has made it much easier to take advantage of the grad transfer rule that predated the one time transfer rule to get an extra free move. Hopefully things will settle down once the 2020-21 is fully in the rearview mirror. More roster continuity would be good for the sport.
LikeLike
Yes, it is important to remember that the 1 free transfer plus a free grad transfer will still exist. I think the presidents are correct to worry about the academic impacts of multiple transfers before graduation.
These restrictions also only apply to 5 sports where “free agency” is a concern.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34307234/what-future-college-football-200-coaches-players-administrators-respond
ESPN surveyed over 200 players, coaches, and administrators about the future of CFB in February-June.
Among the significant changes expected in the coming years are a diminished role for the NCAA, an expansion of the College Football Playoff, continued realignment and, ultimately, a pay-for-play model that would treat players as employees.
Nearly 80% of respondents believe schools will pay athletes directly within the next decade. Nearly 75% think the sport will eventually follow some sort of professional model, perhaps with schools forming conferences based on their willingness to pay players. And virtually everyone (98%) thinks more realignment is in store — sooner than later.
…
But for all the massive shifts in the sport’s landscape, nearly 60% of respondents said they believe college football is as good or better than it was a decade ago.
…
ESPN’s survey, which took place from February to June — almost exclusively before the UCLA and USC move to the Big Ten — asked players, coaches, athletic directors, bowl partners and other stakeholders from all levels of college football to offer anonymous feedback on the biggest issues facing the sport and the trends they expect to shape its future.
Taken the other way that means over 40% think CFB has gotten worse over the past decade. And that’s from people in the sport.
It’s a long piece. A few tidbits relevant to topics we often discuss:
Players, coaches and administrators all agreed that playoff expansion would help the bowl system. A plurality of responses (38%) said the best way to save the bowl system was playoff expansion. Nearly 80% of respondents also said playoff expansion would be the best way to address parity issues in the sport.
What should expansion look like? About a third favored the format put forth last year that would include 12 teams with six auto bids for conference champions. Another one-third of respondents said they preferred an eight-team model. Other responses included a 16-team playoff, a 12-team model without auto bids, a 32-team tournament and a few votes for returning to the BCS two-team model.
…
Indeed, when asked what college football was most likely to look like in 20 years, a sizable majority (58%) answered that, while the sport would remain tied to academics, there would be a split between super conferences that paid their athletes and smaller leagues that don’t.
…
So how will college football reach its end game? If there’s a recurring concern among nearly every stakeholder in the sport, it’s that there’s no captain steering the ship. The NCAA’s transformation committee, the Knight Commission, the individual conferences, the federal and state legislatures, the courts — they’ve all had a say in varying measures, but the sport needs a more unified governance structure that can properly evaluate, implement and respond to changes, and at the moment, no such mechanism exists.
“When the smoke clears, whoever’s in the game, we have to have one commissioner or a football czar,” Schiano said. “You can have commissioners of a conference because there’s more than just football. But then there’s someone who is in charge of all of it, and there’s commonality. I don’t care if it’s the SEC, the Big Ten, if you want to be part of this [playoff], you have to play by these rules.”
Yes, look how well the NFL commissioner handles things and is beloved by fans and players. How would you even begin to find an appropriate person who is considered neutral by all sides? At best, they could get down to a small committee (maybe 5: player rep, G5 rep, B10 rep, SEC rep, indy/other rep).
LikeLike
Taken the other way that means over 40% think CFB has gotten worse over the past decade. And that’s from people in the sport.
I agree with you that 60% is not a ringing endorsement. But this is not a question that has been consistently polled over many years, so there is no comparing it to other big changes. CFB is a tradition-bound sport, which means almost every change is resisted by a sizable number of people.
Players, coaches and administrators all agreed that playoff expansion would help the bowl system.
I am not sure what they mean by this. The most likely endgame is that four of the major bowls will host the quarterfinals. But that still leaves two of the current NY6 that are hosting either playoff losers or teams that didn’t make the playoff at all. I am not sure how they are helped by that. The bowls below the NY6 might be in an even more precarious spot.
LikeLike
Yes, there is no history to compare. But considering this sample includes athletes now getting NIL money, and a world with a CFP vs the BCS, I would’ve expected a higher number. Plus, the USC/UCLA move to the B10 might have further lowered the number.
I don’t know either. Maybe they think a larger playoff will make the CFP games feel less special, so the bowls won’t suffer as much in comparison. More likely, they were assuming many bowls would host CFP games.
A better question might be if they should try to save the bowl system.
LikeLike
“Nearly 80% of respondents believe schools will pay athletes directly within the next decade. Nearly 75% think the sport will eventually follow some sort of professional model, perhaps with schools forming conferences based on their willingness to pay players.”
Wait, I was assured that no conferences WANT to do this, and it will only be forced by the courts.
LikeLike
No conferences want to do it now. Why pay for what they can get for free? But if the courts make players employees, then some conferences presumably would choose to do so rather than have to drop down to a lower level.
It is assumed that the decision would have some criteria for when players become athletes that allow lower levels not to pay them. Otherwise intercollegiate sports will end at the lower levels – they have no money to pay anyone.
LikeLike
I was assured that no conferences WANT to do this, and it will only be forced by the courts.
As I see it, the players already are paid in various ways, both legal and illegal. To paraphrase W. C. Fields, “We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.”
LikeLike
Taken the other way that means over 40% think CFB has gotten worse over the past decade.
Not necessarily. I can’t find the actual poll, so I don’t know the exact phrasing of the question or the possible responses (assuming it was multiple choice) but just because people don’t think the sport is better does not have to mean they think it is worse. They could feel it is the same, or even different but not necessarily for the better or worse.
LikeLike
frug,
But for all the massive shifts in the sport’s landscape, nearly 60% of respondents said they believe college football is as good or better than it was a decade ago.
That’s how ESPN phrased it. The only alternative is to be worse.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/some-premier-college-athletes-face-option-to-exchange-nil-riches-for-portion-of-future-earnings/
Players can now bet on themselves as an NIL deal. Get money up front, but pay a % of their future salary in perpetuity.
BLA has the approximate model. It launched seven years ago, mostly signing minor-league baseball players (about 450 to date) who would surrender a portion of their future earnings for an immediate lump sum. In exchange, players chose to give from 1% to 15% of their future salaries in perpetuity on a sliding scale. You want more money up front? You give up a higher percentage.
LikeLike
In other words, a Bobby Bonilla in reverse. (Or the ABA’s Spirits of St. Louis, to make a “perpetuity” analogy.)
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/sports/2022/7/29/22vbmd.aspx?
Here’s something you won’t see the SEC do. B10 is holding WVB media days starting today (hosted at BTN).
LikeLike
The B1G has done wonders for women’s v’ball at Maryland, as the Terrapins have become competitive (occasionally beating nationally-ranked conference rivals) as they inch closer to that elusive NCAA tournament berth.
LikeLike
This point — ND and Stanford will be tied together to the B1G — doesn’t seem to be much disputed anymore, but this Friday tweet from Thamel is further confirmation. Swarbrick uses Thamel as a mouthpiece.
LikeLike
Peter,
I have seen some ND alumni say Stanford doesn’t really matter to them, so maybe ND wouldn’t insist on them. USC and UCLA would get them 1 game in CA every year which is what they want.
I have seen others (some ND alumni, and some not) suggest that Stanford would be a requirement for adding ND. I don’t know which group better reflects the official position of the ND decision makers.
The consensus is that Stanford is nice, but adding Stanford won’t influence ND’s decision of whether or not to stay independent. This makes sense to me. It will help make the B10 by far the best choice if they ever do join a conference, but it won’t force their hand.
The other common agreement is that the B10 would and should add Stanford if ND requests it.
LikeLike
I am firmly convinced Stanford is a condition precedent to ND joining the B1G. Thamel just confirms what has struck me from the beginning of the recent B1G talk as obvious to anyone who has followed ND closely over the last 30 years.
LikeLike
Peter,
I think Stanford is ND’s preferred +1, and agree it is possible they would demand Stanford be added with them (if not already in).
But I also know ND basically never played Stanford before 1988, so it’s not a rivalry like USC or a duty game like Navy. Since I’ve seen some ND alumni tell me Stanford doesn’t matter that much, it’s the CA access Stanford provides, I have to also give some credence to their opinions.
So I don’t think any of this is a lock other than that ND would prefer to stay independent.
LikeLike
@Peter Griffin – I will say that Pete Thamel is usually pretty careful with his wording, so that particular Tweet caught my eye. Stanford being tied to ND is something that many of us (including me) have speculated on for quite awhile, but it’s different coming from someone like Thamel saying it directly.
LikeLike
Frank: “Stanford being tied to ND . . .”
You may be right but I continue to believe that all of this chatter about ND joining a conference is just more smoke screen for the NBC-ND-Big Ten contract negotiations. ND’s contract with the ACC is pretty much ironclad and they still have a lot of fans and alums who cherish “induhpendunce”.
NBC and ND are a tag team trying to get the Big Ten ‘shoulder programming’ for bottom dollar. Neither wants dreadful K State-UCF games instead of Big Ten caliber so they want to weasel down the Big Ten payments ans maximize the ND payouts. I dearly hope Warren doesn’t take the bait and believe that enabling NBC/ND will enhance chances of ND joining the Big Ten. It won’t.
If I’m wrong, I will come back here and eat crow in front of you Tankers. We’ll see in the next couple of months.
LikeLike
I do not expect the Big Ten to fall for that — it is too obvious. I wonder who leaked the phrase “shoulder programming,” and what motivated them? Those are not the words the Big Ten would want to hear.
It is always the safest bet that ND will remain independent. But I don’t think the Big Ten is going to provide the shoulder for them to lean on. I can’t wait for those K-State/UCF games on the Peacock Network!
LikeLike
Colin,
Of course it’s about the NBC/B10/ND negotiations, and the rest of the B10’s negotiations. The B10 is trying to present a huge number to ND. ND is asking for a huge number so they feel comfortable staying independent. NBC is considering adding B10 games, but of course wants to pay the least possible. B10 + ND games have synergy for NBC, which let’s them afford to pay both more. NBC may have to outbid ESPN to get these games (or CBS, or …), so they can’t lowball an offer and think they’ll win.
The ACC GOR is ironclad, but nobody’s talking about breaking it with ND. They’re talking about buying out of it, and the price has been guesstimated at $100-150M. They also don’t have to leave the ACC entirely. They could leave their other sports there if the ACC wanted. They could agree to keep playing some, if not all, of their contracted 5 games per year. Maybe the B10 offers to have some big brands play those games that ND can’t fulfill. Who knows?
They could even be negotiating ND contracting to play multiple (2-4) B10 teams per year, with NBC getting to broadcast ND’s road games as well.
But first, the B10 has to get a rough number (from all the networks) and then ND has to decide if their own deal is close enough to keep them competitive.
LikeLike
Brian: “They could even be negotiating ND contracting to play multiple (2-4) B10 teams per year, with NBC getting to broadcast ND’s road games as well. But first, the B10 has to get a rough number (from all the networks) and then ND has to decide if their own deal is close enough to keep them competitive.”
Brian,do you understand how stupid it would be for the Big Ten to agree to this? Get some chump change from NBC so that they could continue to glorify ND football every other weekend?
LikeLike
Negotiating doesn’t mean the B10 will say yes. But the more options people throw out there, the longer the negotiations will take.
Just because you have a problem with ND doesn’t mean the B10 does. The B10 will do almost anything for enough money. If NBC and Fox/CBS/ESPN/? can agree to let NBC cover ND @ B10 games for the right price, the B10 will consider it. The B10 sells rights to show their games. If Fox then wants to sell the rights to pick a few specific games to NBC, why is that a bad thing for the B10? The B10 cares how big the total check is a lot more than which OTA network is showing their games, or how much each network is paying individually.
LikeLike
Brian: “Just because you have a problem with ND doesn’t mean the B10 does.”
I don’t have a problem with ND. I have a problem with this smokescreen that they’re blowing that they may join a conference now. They won’t. It’s a ploy to jack up their TV revenue and I’ve posted that several times.
LikeLike
Trust me, we’ve all noticed that you have repeated that over and over and over.
I don’t have a problem with ND. I have a problem with this smokescreen that they’re blowing that they may join a conference now. They won’t. It’s a ploy to jack up their TV revenue and I’ve posted that several times.
See, that’s the definition of having a problem with ND. They want to maximize their TV deal and are doing what they think is necessary. So does every other P5 school, but you repeatedly harp on ND doing it.
We get it. You don’t think they’ll join a conference. If you actually read what others have written here, most of us don’t think they will either (at least, not now). That doesn’t mean you don’t talk with them about it. Why should the B10 care if NBC ends up overpaying ND and the B10?
LikeLike
Brian: “Why should the B10 care if NBC ends up overpaying ND and the B10?”
That isn’t the way it works. The more NBC pays ND, the less money is available for the Big Ten, and vice versa. I have previously posted this.
LikeLike
“That isn’t the way it works. The more NBC pays ND, the less money is available for the Big Ten, and vice versa. I have previously posted this.”
And so then the B10 doesn’t sign with NBC. Any “favors” the B10 agrees to in order to curry favor with ND isn’t going to include the B10 taking less money.
LikeLike
Manifestodeluxe; “And so then the B10 doesn’t sign with NBC. Any “favors” the B10 agrees to in order to curry favor with ND isn’t going to include the B10 taking less money.”
Right, that is exactly what I have been saying. Warren should not be duped by these “ND joining Big Ten soon” rumors with the hint that it will be sooner rather than later if the B1G caves on current negotiations. We should play hardball and afford zero credibility to the rumors.
LikeLike
Colin,
Unless you sign the contracts for NBC, your opinion of how things work is meaningless.
If NBC feels keeping an independent ND is valuable to them, they’ll pay for it even if that means also paying the B10. If they want good B10 games, they’ll pay for them or someone else will.
It’s not like NBC has already declared exactly how much they’ll spend on CFB, so it’s a zero-sum game between ND and the B10. They could just decide to spend more overall, if they think the value is there.
LikeLike
Right – I don’t think it really matters what NBC is paying to ND in terms of what NBC is willing to pay (or not pay) for the Big Ten. The difference between NBC paying ND $75 million per year versus $100 million per year is pretty irrelevant in terms of what NBC’s budget would be for the Big Ten. What *is* relevant to NBC is if ABC/ESPN, CBS and/or Amazon are upping their bids for the Big Ten by a couple of hundred million dollars or more. The bidding war for the Big Ten going into the stratosphere is what would cause NBC to bow out. (The indications from John Ourand lately appear to indicate that’s exactly what’s happening. This seems to be a race between or even including all of ABC/ESPN, CBS and Amazon while NBC looks like it’s on the outside.)
LikeLike
How many strawmen are planning to throw out about this?
Nobody but you has ever suggested the B10 cave in to ND. Negotiating doesn’t mean you’ve been duped or are caving. There can be value for both sides.
LikeLike
Brian: “How many strawmen are (you) planning to throw out about this?”
Brian, I’m not posting all the rumors about ND joining a conference. That’s the strawmen here.
LikeLike
Colin: “Right, that is exactly what I have been saying. Warren should not be duped by these “ND joining Big Ten soon” rumors with the hint that it will be sooner rather than later if the B1G caves on current negotiations.”
I would have a hard time believing he’d be quite so gullible. While I have little doubt there would be some form of quid pro quo in the end, both sides are negotiating from positions of strength (B10 more so imo) and the B10 isn’t desperate. Frankly put, ND will always be an amazing get, but is never going to be the ND of yore again. The sport is a lot different from the 1950s.
Moreover, the upward trend of cost to play King level football is only accelerating, and is moving beyond novelty athletic facility gimmicks and into real questions of pay, long term healthcare, etc. Real costs — not neat looking water features and adult slides meant to wow recruits. While ND will never be hurting for money, and historically is fine taking less to maintain their independence, there is likely a breaking point where they’ll be fine leaving money on the table and dipping into the coffers to keep pace. For fans that number is likely much higher than for the administrators. The question is what number represents that breaking point.
For as much as the B10 wants ND in the conference, they also know ND will never join their main competition (SEC) and they can wait if need be.
LikeLike
Frank,
“Right – I don’t think it really matters what NBC is paying to ND in terms of what NBC is willing to pay (or not pay) for the Big Ten. The difference between NBC paying ND $75 million per year versus $100 million per year is pretty irrelevant in terms of what NBC’s budget would be for the Big Ten.”
Exactly.
“What *is* relevant to NBC is if ABC/ESPN, CBS and/or Amazon are upping their bids for the Big Ten by a couple of hundred million dollars or more. The bidding war for the Big Ten going into the stratosphere is what would cause NBC to bow out. (The indications from John Ourand lately appear to indicate that’s exactly what’s happening. This seems to be a race between or even including all of ABC/ESPN, CBS and Amazon while NBC looks like it’s on the outside.)”
That’s good for the B10, I suppose, as long as they use it to avoid actually putting much (preferably nothing exclusive) on Amazon. ESPN should want a piece of the B10, and the B10 would be wise to stay on ESPN. CBS needs something to replace the SEC, and they underpaid them for years so they should have money available for it. The battle is presumably about who gets what pick and how often.
LikeLike
Rumors are just that – rumors. They care just as much weight as your opinion of what ND absolutely will or won’t do. Nobody’s claiming they are cogent arguments.
We can tell the difference. Why can’t you?
LikeLike
Brian: “We can tell the difference. Why can’t you?”
The guy who posts the last insult wins, OK?
LikeLike
Brian: “That’s good for the B10, I suppose, as long as they use it to avoid actually putting much (preferably nothing exclusive) on Amazon. ESPN should want a piece of the B10, and the B10 would be wise to stay on ESPN. CBS needs something to replace the SEC, and they underpaid them for years so they should have money available for it. The battle is presumably about who gets what pick and how often.”
What I’d be a bit curious to see is how aggressive Amazon is willing to be and, really, how involved they actually wish to be. Are they hoping to just get some 4th tier streaming dregs, or are they looking to be a primary player going forward? They’re at a disadvantage to begin with so they’d likely need to overpay either way. Do they decide to overpay so much that there’s just no debate? So much that ND has a double take moment?
That said, I agree re: B10 and ESPN. Whatever someone might think about ESPN they are the heart of college football broadcasting and the playoffs. It would be foolish to cut them out completely and let their focus stay solely on the other conferences.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
Presumably Amazon would want pretty good games, because otherwise nobody will bother to subscribe to watch them. Getting people used to streaming CFB will be a hurdle, so they’d want attractive games.
The only way dregs make sense is if they are just looking to add some value to their subscription, so they want to throw in some live content for sports fans. Then maybe they can just be co-streaming games, or showing RU vs IL, because they aren’t investing much (to them, anyway) in it anyway.
LikeLike
Brian: “The only way dregs make sense is if they are just looking to add some value to their subscription, so they want to throw in some live content for sports fans.”
That’s what I mean. Is Amazon trying to be a destination for this like they want to be with the NFL, or are they trying to just fill out the back catalog for a little more incentive to keep a Prime sub?
It’s probably not a huge breakthrough to note the cost difference between those answers is pretty substantial, and could have reverberating consequences for everyone else — including how ND sees the future landscape.
LikeLike
If they’re going big on the NFL, it’s hard to imagine they’re okay with the dregs of B10 rights. It just wouldn’t make much sense to me.
If they could get comprehensive co-streaming rights, that might work because at least they still get good games.
LikeLike
Brian: “If they’re going big on the NFL, it’s hard to imagine they’re okay with the dregs of B10 rights. It just wouldn’t make much sense to me. If they could get comprehensive co-streaming rights, that might work because at least they still get good games.”
Does anyone know if NBC is looking for so-called shoulder programming only, meaning Big Ten games to televise on the seven weekends when ND has a home game? Or are they also trying to get Big Ten doubleheaders on Saturdays when the Irish are on the road?
LikeLike
Yes – my impression is that Amazon is out to get premium sports content that’s on par with the OTA networks and ESPN and have Amazon Prime Video effectively be an OTA-level platform. The NFL Thursday Night package on Amazon this year is a substantial improvement from the TNF package in prior seasons. At the same time, Amazon has moved Yankees games on Friday from YES to exclusive streaming in the NYC market. Note that the YES-Yankees relationship is the most valuable regional sports network deal by a large margin, so Amazon isn’t nibbling around the edges here.
If (when?) Amazon wins any Big Ten rights, they’re almost certainly going to be quality games. They won’t be the super marquee games like Michigan-Ohio State or Penn State-Ohio State, but pretty much any Michigan/OSU/PSU/USC game against a lower tier opponent is probably in play along with the solid Michigan State/Wisconsin vs. Iowa/Nebraska-type games.
Note that Amazon Prime is actually already in a lot more homes compared to ESPN or any other basic cable networks, so it’s not about distribution. It’s more about activating Prime customers to use the Video service more and sports allows them to have targeted ads for products sold via Prime, which in theory would then drive up the ordering on Prime to an even higher level. That’s how I see big-time sports like the NFL and Yankees (and potentially the Big Ten) fits into Amazon’s overall strategy and why they’re willing to spend so much on rights fees as of now.
This seems to be different than Apple where their sports streaming ambitions are more about separate a la carte subscriptions. That’s how they’re treating their new MLS deal and it’s also why they’re the favorite for winning the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Apple has a weekly MLB package on Apple TV+ as of now, but otherwise, they don’t seem to be focused on getting big-time sporting events onto that base-level Apple TV+ subscription as much as seeking additional separate sport-specific subscriptions on top of it.
LikeLike
Brian: “If they’re going big on the NFL, it’s hard to imagine they’re okay with the dregs of B10 rights. It just wouldn’t make much sense to me.”
That’s largely where I’m at. Why spend the money at all if all you’re getting for it is a Friday night RU-PU or MACrifice game. But that means likely paying through the nose for those good games, because for the B10 there’s a potential downside to partnering with Amazon/Apple that likely wouldn’t be present for a traditional network. They’d want to be compensated to accept that risk, and the money difference between a yes or no is likely way more important to the B10 than it would be to Amazon’s bottom line.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Does anyone know if NBC is looking for so-called shoulder programming only, meaning Big Ten games to televise on the seven weekends when ND has a home game? Or are they also trying to get Big Ten doubleheaders on Saturdays when the Irish are on the road?”
We don’t know. We only have that report of NBC wanting “shoulder programming” in the form of games, with B10 and B12 mentioned as options.
They may just want a second game to pair with ND. They may want 1 B10 game per week no matter what. They may want 2 games every weekend including their ND games. Any of those is possible. I don’t know what other sports commitments NBC already has on fall Saturdays. Maybe they need some open Saturdays.
In part it may depend on what the B10 offers. Maybe NBC only wants shoulder games, but the B10 is demanding a weekly game. Or maybe the other networks are demanding higher picking order if NBC is only partially involved. We may never know.
LikeLike
Frank,
“Note that Amazon Prime is actually already in a lot more homes compared to ESPN or any other basic cable networks, so it’s not about distribution. It’s more about activating Prime customers to use the Video service more”
Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.
Amazon Prime memberships are in lots of households, but AP Video isn’t. It’s not really in their home if they never watch it. Many aren’t even aware that they have access to it.
https://www.mediaplaynews.com/parks-amazon-prime-video-reaches-45-percent-of-us-households/
And apparently, actual AP video use still isn’t in a majority of internet households and is well behind Netflix. ESPN still hits more households.
“and sports allows them to have targeted ads for products sold via Prime, which in theory would then drive up the ordering on Prime to an even higher level. That’s how I see big-time sports like the NFL and Yankees (and potentially the Big Ten) fits into Amazon’s overall strategy and why they’re willing to spend so much on rights fees as of now.”
Yes, they’re looking for new ways to eke every last penny out of people. Remind me again why the B10 should contribute to that? Does the B10 get a cut of increased subscription fees, or ad revenue, or sales, like they did with BTN? How much more are they willing to pay than the existing networks that the B10’s fans already have access to, because the B10 will get the backlash?
“This seems to be different than Apple where their sports streaming ambitions are more about separate a la carte subscriptions. That’s how they’re treating their new MLS deal and it’s also why they’re the favorite for winning the NFL Sunday Ticket package. Apple has a weekly MLB package on Apple TV+ as of now, but otherwise, they don’t seem to be focused on getting big-time sporting events onto that base-level Apple TV+ subscription as much as seeking additional separate sport-specific subscriptions on top of it.”
Aka the cable model with premium sports packages.
LikeLike
I think your initial point is exactly why Amazon is shelling out money for sports: every single Amazon Prime member has its Video streaming service, but many aren’t using it since that’s not the main reason why they’re Prime members. (This is in contrast to Netflix or Disney+ where the streaming platform itself is the primary product, so they receive high usage among subscribers.) That’s a pretty huge untapped market – Amazon doesn’t really need to sell more Prime Video subscriptions (although it of course wants to), but rather monetize the households that it already has.
I’m not making a value judgment on whether Amazon’s methods are a good thing or a bad thing, but just rather this seems to be why they’re willing to spend on sports packages that would otherwise be the province of linear TV networks in a way that we’re not seeing with Apple. The main value of sports is that it’s one of the few outlets where people watch advertising, so that has a fairly direct value for Amazon as a distributor of consumer products. The value that the Big Ten would be getting is that they’d get significantly more from Amazon for a “Tier 2” set of games than they would from ABC/ESPN or CBS for those same games. That’s certainly what happened with the NFL’s deal with Amazon, where they’re paying $1 billion per year for a Thursday Night package that NBC, CBS and FOX all passed around like hot potato for the past several years.
LikeLike
Perhaps Amazon should try advertising their TV-only subscription to draw people in, then try to upsell them instead of trying to get everyone into the top tier from the start. If people know they’re signing up for TV, they’re more likely to watch it.
Heck, I bet they could 20M people to pay for both the TV subscription and Prime because they don’t connect Prime with TV.
LikeLike
“If they’re going big on the NFL, it’s hard to imagine they’re okay with the dregs of B10 rights. It just wouldn’t make much sense to me.”
While I agree Amazon probably wants something “big”, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t also pay for some “bad games” if the price isn’t too high. Maryland-Rutgers might not have a huge audience, but the fans of those schools will find Amazon Prime if the game is there. That’s how the Big Ten network stays in business, after all.
Don’t forget that while Prime tries to get big movies and event series, you can also find cheaply made movies from the 60s and 70s on their service. And everything you watch gives them more data.
In fact, if I were Amazon, I’d probably try and get a small selection of every sport the Big Ten offers (perhaps paying the Big Ten network to produce the non-football stuff). The audience for Big Ten volleyball isn’t huge, but if someone watches 3 of the (say) 10 volleyball matches Amazon airs, that gives them a lot of focused information for their advertising.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“While I agree Amazon probably wants something “big”, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t also pay for some “bad games” if the price isn’t too high.”
Sure. Add a lot of inventory for cheap, with a few shiny games to draw people in.
“Maryland-Rutgers might not have a huge audience, but the fans of those schools will find Amazon Prime if the game is there.”
Will they? I’m guessing a huge percentage wouldn’t bother to stream it unless bowl eligibility was on the line or something.
“That’s how the Big Ten network stays in business, after all.”
But BTN is in the same place as ESPN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, FS1, …. Flipping channels is much more likely than changing modes of viewing.
“Don’t forget that while Prime tries to get big movies and event series, you can also find cheaply made movies from the 60s and 70s on their service. And everything you watch gives them more data.”
If you say so. I have no idea what APV does or doesn’t have.
“In fact, if I were Amazon, I’d probably try and get a small selection of every sport the Big Ten offers (perhaps paying the Big Ten network to produce the non-football stuff). The audience for Big Ten volleyball isn’t huge, but if someone watches 3 of the (say) 10 volleyball matches Amazon airs, that gives them a lot of focused information for their advertising.”
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/governing-bodies/article/15295063/volleyball-world-tv-to-broadcast-70-big-ten-network-games
The B10 is airing a record 55 WVB games this year, on BTN/ESPN2/ESPNU/FS1. More are streamed on B1G+.
In a joint news release, the Big Ten and Volleyball World said as part of the deal, more than 70 Big Ten volleyball matches will appear on VolleyballWorld.tv
…
Via the Big Ten Network, VolleyballWorld.tv will offer its subscribers:
* Livestreaming of nearly 50 televised Big Ten Network volleyball matches outside of North America and certain Caribbean islands
* Access to 28 matches from B1G+ inventory – those matches will also air concurrently on B1G+
* “At The Net,” the Big Ten Network’s multiplatform, behind-the-scenes look at the personalities and programs across the conference, will be made available on Volleyballworld.tv
LikeLike
I’ve said it before:
I think Amazon will get the third pick of B10 games every week (paying as much as the networks pay for the alternating first/second picks).
LikeLike
Stanford could very well be the Big Ten’s first choice for #18, even if Notre Dame didn’t have a preference.
Among the list of conditions the Irish might have, I am hard pressed to believe that adding Stanford would truly be the deal-breaker. But if it were, I have no doubt the Big Ten would happily invite them.
LikeLike
I have been ruminating about the best outcome for the Pac-10. To explain, first a couple of brief geography lessons.
Starting in Cheyenne, Wyoming (U of WY), you can drive south on I-25 thru Ft. Collins (CO St U) and Boulder (U of CO) and reach Colorado Springs (AF Academy) in three hours, start to finish.
Starting in Logan, Utah (UT St U), you can drive south on I-15 thru Salt Lake City (U of UT) to Provo (BYU) in two hours. Logan to Boise (Boise St) on I-84 takes four hours.
Considering how spread out everything is out West, these groupings are quite remarkable. If these schools were in the same conference and played each other as annual opponents, it would be chock full of natural rivalries and all of the fans would have short travel distances to attend away games.
So here’s the plan. The Pac-10 expands to 16 with the additions cited above and goes to a divisionless 3-6-6 format, with each school having three dedicated annual opponents and playing the other conference schools six one year, the other six the next. The groupings are so automatic they almost form themselves:
Colorado, CO St, AFA and Wyoming are all each others annual opponents.
Utah, UT St, BYU and Boise St are all each others annual opponents.
Wash, WSU, Oregon and OSU are all each others annual opponents.
Stanford, Cal, Arizona and ASU are all each others annual opponents.
That’s the best the Pac-10 is going to do with what they have left. Check it out on a map . . .
https://www.mapshop.com/western-usa-wall-map/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw852XBhC6ARIsAJsFPN3IwPjJGhVnBMgcTXdzrTglS4CuX0FGqjFpM5_UndkdmWMMtB3Bo6oaAnhOEALw_wcB
LikeLike
Colin,
For just playing games, that makes sense.
But financially? 3 schools in CO and UT? UWY? Does AFA want to be in a pseudo-power conference? How can adding 5 MWC schools help? Why would BYU leave the B12 for this?
If they’re adding 5 MWC schools, why not the other 6? It seems like SDSU and Fresno might bring more value than schools like WY. And if 22 works, what about UTEP and NMSU to hit 24 and control all the western/mountain schools?
Have a P24 that plays in tiers, with promotion/relegation between the tiers every 4 years. Top tier gets 3x (or more) the CFB payout of the bottom tier.
Or slightly more realistically, have a P12 (UW, WSU, UO, OrSO, SU, Cal, Fresno St, SDSU, ASU, UA, CU, UU) and a MWC of 12 (Boise, USU, UWY, CSU, AFA, UNM, NMSU, UTEP, UNR, UNLV, SJSU, UH – football only).
I know NMSU is horrible, but UTEP and NMSU belong in that grouping.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of additions they would not normally be inclined to make, all for the sake of manufacturing annual rivalries that do not exist today. Modern expansion has been about grabbing valuable territory a conference does not already have, not about tripling-down in the same places.
LikeLike
Marc: ” Modern expansion has been about grabbing valuable territory a conference does not already have, not about tripling-down in the same places.”
True, but that doesn’t apply here. The Pac-10 has lost southern California. The USC and UCLA fans will continue being USC and UCLA fans – in the Big Ten. The Pac-10 bringing in any combination of San Diego St, Fresno or UNLV isn’t going to change that. LA is now Big Ten turf.
Bringing Idaho and Wyoming into the conference won’t be huge but those are two states with nothing else to compete with college football. And as I pointed out, both the Colorado group and Utah group would have automatic rivalries whereas SDS, Fresno and UNLV do not. UNLV’s archrival is Hawaii.
LikeLike
Bear in mind, it is no sure thing that the Pac-12 will add Fresno and SDSU. Many sources have predicted that unless there are further defections, they’ll do nothing — just as the Big XII did when it could have added those very same schools, and did not.
A lot of the rivalries you mention are contested today or have been in the recent past, so the data on what they are worth should not be hard to find. But at most, you have accounted for just three games per team of a 12-game schedule. Even if Utah State vs. Utah is a ratings blockbuster, which I suspect it is not, you have to want Utah State eleven more times in your inventory.
Both the Pac-12 and the Big XII have looked at the Mountain West schools repeatedly, and they’ve got data from their TV partners that you and I don’t have.
LikeLike
Colin,
Tens of thousands of P12 alumni live in LA (not counting USC and UCLA alumni). UW counts over 17,000 in SoCal, for example. They still have a major presence, just not enough fans of any one team to drive game attendance or something. Fresno and SDSU would add new CA areas they could dominate, plus give them even more total fans in LA.
WY + ID = 2.5M people. The SD MSA is 3.3M, and Fresno is 1.0M. Granted, SD is not all SDSU fans, but it’s a lot more people. I’m not big on UNLV for the P12, but Vegas is 2.3M people.
Rivalries are nice, but WY is a loser for TV revenue. So are CSU and USU.
LikeLike
Brian: “. . . Fresno and SDSU would add new CA areas they could dominate . . .”
Brian, please stop the nonsense, OK? SDSU and Fresno St are dog shid in southern Cal. USC and UCLA TV viewers, in the Big Ten plus LA, would totally dwarf fans from those two loser schools.
LikeLike
Yes, they are weak. They are also the best of what’s left. I think the P12 is much more likely to stay at 12, but literally everyone has said SDSU would be their #1 target if they did expand.
And SDSU is still more valuable than WY, USU or CSU. Especially with the number of P12 alumni living there.
I never claimed they could own LA. I said the P12 has a fan presence in LA (so their games will draw some viewers there), and they could try to own SD and Fresno.
LikeLike
Brian: “I never claimed they could own LA. I said the P12 has a fan presence in LA.”
Brian,the P-12 is dead meat in LA. LA is totally owned by USC and UCLA and every college football fan in LA will be watching them on Fox and the BTN within the Big Ten. SDSU has zero value there. Fresno St has zero value there. UNLV has zero value there.
LikeLike
And yet, CSU was considered by the Big 12. UNLV and SDSU were not. They got a, come back in 5 years.
Of course, Southern California means something to the Pac without USC and UCLA.
LikeLike
bullet,
It’s almost like CSU fits better in the B12 and would get them back into CO. They have more value to the B12 than to the P12.
And the B12 chose 4 other schools above them, and considered several others. If CSU was so valuable, the MWC would be getting paid more or CSU would have a special deal like Boise does.
LikeLike
CSU was considered by the Big 12. UNLV and SDSU were not.
The Big XII evaluated San Diego State: Here’s what San Diego State’s Big 12 pitch looked like
LikeLike
Colin,
Try reading what was written.
First, USC and UCLA don’t own anything. They aren’t even top 5 teams in LA, unless they are playing at an elite level.
Second, UW + WSU + UO + OrSU + Cal + Stanford + UA + ASU + CU + UU + SDSU + Fresno St adds up to a lot of P12 alumni (and thus fans) in LA. I never, ever, ever, said they would dominate LA. I said they would get some viewers there.
Third, I said I wouldn’t expand at all if I was the P12.
Fourth, I never supported UNLV at all. But it would still be better than Wyoming (and their 3 fans), CSU (they already have CU, what possible help is CSU to them?), or AFA (they might not even want to be in a P5 conference).
Speaking of nonsense, there’s a reason literally nobody else on Earth thinks your idea is a good one.
LikeLike
The Big 12 looked at dozens of schools. SDSU didn’t make that final 11 in 2016. CSU and Air Force from the MWC did. (+BYU, UH, UCF, UC, USF, Tulane, Rice, SMU, UConn).
LikeLike
If your analysis was purely theoretical with it understood that there is zero chance of implementation, then it is an interesting exercise.
If you believe that this could ever work, when was the last time that a P5 conference added schools that had virtually no incremental value because the geography worked?
Assuming that the PAC gets about $300 million for the remaining 10 schools, how are Wyoming, Utah State, Colorado State, etc., going to bring anywhere near $30 million each. What network would want them?
The Mountain West teams receive less than $7 million per year. Are they worth four times that much by playing the existing PAC schools?
The map is great, but?
LikeLike
Bernie: “If you believe that this could ever work, when was the last time that a P5 conference added schools that had virtually no incremental value because the geography worked?”
The Pac-10 is no longer a P5 school.
Assuming that the PAC gets about $300 million for the remaining 10 schools, how are Wyoming, Utah State, Colorado State, etc., going to bring anywhere near $30 million each.
1. The Pac-12 network is dead meat.
2. How are UNLV, Fresno St, SDS etc going to bring in $30 million each?
LikeLike
The Pac-10 is no longer a P5.
They aren’t G5 either. The estimates for a 10-team Pac-12 are way higher than any G5 league now makes. We don’t have a name for what the Pac, Big XII, and ACC have become. Maybe call them the Middle Three.
How are UNLV, Fresno St, SDS etc going to bring in $30 million each?
They aren’t, which is why they probably won’t be added. But the most likely Pac-12 expansion (if they do it at all) is by a mere two schools, which gets them back to 12. You would have them add six. The math does not work either way, but it gets steadily worse the more you add.
LikeLike
Marc: “But the most likely Pac-12 expansion (if they do it at all) is by a mere two schools, which gets them back to 12.”
And what are those two schools?
LikeLike
A year ago it would have been Texas Tech and Oklahoma State; however, the PAC missed that window. Now they have a choice between bad options and awful options. Good possibility they will stand pat if there are no further invites.
I think that SDSU will pull S. California about as well as Kent State will pull Northeast Ohio.
LikeLike
The two most prominently mentioned is SDSU. Every source I have seen thinks that if the Pac expands at all, SDSU will be one of them. Several candidates have been mentioned as the plus-one.
LikeLike
Sorry…the ONE most prominently mentioned is SDSU.
LikeLike
Marc: Sorry…the ONE most prominently mentioned is SDSU.
So then everyone in LA will start watching SDSU instead of USC and UCLA, right?
LikeLike
As opposed to the people where, exactly, that will be tuning in to watch Wyoming?
LikeLike
So then everyone in LA will start watching SDSU instead of USC and UCLA, right?
If everyone would watch SDSU instead of USC and UCLA, then the Pac-12 would not care about losing those two schools. Clearly, that is not the case. SDSU is the best of a bad situation.
LikeLike
I will say this about you Colin, you are consistent! You have tried to slip BYU into the PAC with every imaginable combination! I feel bad for Hawaii because a year ago you were pushing them.
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone think the COP/C would be extremely hesitant to add additional schools from the PAC at this time? Do they want to be seen as conference killers; of a conference they have long had a close relationship with? I would think absolutely not! Or is it now a Kevin Warren type ‘greed is good’ mentality. If ND can break free of the ACC GOR, and agree to join the B1G, I can see the COP/C agreeing to add Stanford. If ND is not coming, I have difficulty believing they would further destroy the PAC by adding Stanford and Washington, or Stanford and Cal. A counter to that argument would be if they were to add Stanford, Cal, UO, and UW, they could contend they didn’t kill the PAC, instead they gave lifelines to half the PAC.
LikeLike
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone think the COP/C would be extremely hesitant to add additional schools from the PAC at this time?
I am not aware of a conference that has hesitated to make a financially beneficial move, because they didn’t want to be seen as “conference killers.” If they stand pat, it will be because the dollars are not there.
Or is it now a Kevin Warren type ‘greed is good’ mentality.
At the latest Big Ten media day, he came across as the “greed is good” type. I assume until shown otherwise that the COP/C is on the same page.
LikeLike
largeR,
I do think some of them will hesitate, but mostly it’s the Kevin Gekko (I mean Warren) show now. The 3 newer members feel no real ties to the P12 (even PSU probably doesn’t), and most of the older members have newish presidents that don’t have those ties either (longest tenured president in the east division started their job in 2019). Some of the ADs may feel the ties, but they don’t have a vote. Besides, it’s not like realignment will hurt the actual schools.
LikeLike
It makes little sense for the Pac-12 to expand at all under current conditions. No team that it could realsitically add will increase the conference value and be politically acceptable. The time to try to expand will be when/if they lose more members. At that point, the Pac-12 may be forced to merge with the Big-12 or become Mountain West+. Pursuing a strategy of keeping UCLA (and USC) makes much more sense right now, no matter how unrealistic its chances.
LikeLike
San Diego State makes more sense for the Big 12 than the Pac, since its future is significantly clearer. This is not 2016, when conventional wisdom dissuaded conferences from spanning four time zones; on June 30, SC, UCLA and the B1G threw that philosophy out the window.
LikeLike
I have a question about ND. I think it’s agreed that the ACC ND GOR applies to every sport but FB & Ice Hockey?
Does anyone know for sure if ND agreement to only join the ACC runs concurrent with the GOR or does it terminate earlier?
IMO ND never signs anything unless it’s weighted heavily in their favor. I can’t help but feel ND has some escape clause. ND isn’t saying and the ACC sure wouldn’t because of the panic that would ensue. Again just my humble opinion.
LikeLike
Doug: “Does anyone know for sure if ND agreement to only join the ACC runs concurrent with the GOR or does it terminate earlier?”
Doug, all of the information that has been widely available for years repeatedly tells us that this Swarbrick genius signed an ironclad agreement to keep ND in the ACC until 2036. That’s why all of this current squealing about “ND to Big Ten” is bull droppings.
LikeLike
The agreements are not available, so we don’t know. But even Jack Swarbrick acknowledged that there are conditions that could push ND to join a conference. He is a trained lawyer and chooses his words carefully. It would be odd for him to say that, if the agreements do not have an early way out, or if the price is so high that it would be impossible to pay. He was around when the agreements were signed, so he certainly knows what is in them.
Prominent and well connected ND alumni have been talking about joining the Big Ten. Not that it will happen, but about the potential. If there were literally no way it could be done, I think ND leadership would have said so by now. You don’t want your own best friends agitating for something that is impossible. The lack of an outright denial is therefore significant.
This does not mean I think they will join a conference this decade, only that I suspect there is a way.
LikeLike
If there were literally no way it could be done, I think ND leadership would have said so by now. You don’t want your own best friends agitating for something that is impossible. The lack of an outright denial is therefore significant.
This does not mean I think they will join a conference this decade, only that I suspect there is a way.
Marc,
What I can’t get my head around is why ND would sign anything like that for 20 years without any conditions.
LikeLike
What I can’t get my head around is why ND would sign anything like that for 20 years without any conditions.
I can’t believe the other 14 members did it too. The GoR needed unanimous approval. All it needed was one school to realize how stupid it was, and the deal falls apart.
LikeLike
At the time, there was a good deal of pressure on ACC Commish Swofford to start up a conference network like the BTN. The best deal he could get was from ESPN and their conditions included low revenue and a long GOR. All of the schools signed on because they thought it was the best deal they were going to get, and it probably was.
LikeLike
FSU was the surprise.
They clearly had interest from the SEC, and they joined Maryland in voting against the $50 million exit fee.
I can understand everyone else voting for it.
Clemson hadn’t yet started its big run, UVA and UNC wanted to secure the ACC.
Everyone else was questionable on having alternative places to go.
But FSU really should have refused to sign that GoR.
LikeLike
At the time, there was a good deal of pressure on ACC Commish Swofford to start up a conference network like the BTN. The best deal he could get was from ESPN and their conditions included low revenue and a long GOR.
They were hoodwinked. ESPN obviously needed a guarantee before investing in a network, but they didn’t need 20 years. I would bet that ESPN’s internal projections showed the ACCN with a favorable IRR by about year seven, if not before. (Seven years is the sweet spot to greenlight a project in most industries, other than certain very asset-heavy ones like jetliners.)
If ESPN said, “we need 20 years or the deal doesn’t make sense,” they were bluffing. Swoffie and the schools fell for it.
LikeLike
Marc: “If ESPN said, “we need 20 years or the deal doesn’t make sense,” they were bluffing. Swoffie and the schools fell for it.”
The punchline here is that Swoffie’s son, Chad Swofford, was then the Senior Director of New Media and Business Development at Raycom Sports. And Raycom Sports was in cahoots with ESPN in the development of the ACC Network. So try telling me that deal didn’t have any stink on it.
LikeLike
For ND:
They had zero intentions of ever joining a conference, so that didn’t seem like a sacrifice. The rest got them a place for their other sports with a bit of money and some exposure via the ACCN, and they got bowl games access and some P5 games in good locations easily scheduled.
For the ACC:
ESPN would only start the ACCN if they extended the deal with the GOR. They needed the money and hoped for a windfall from the ACCN. Maybe some thought ND would actually join in full along the way.
None of them realized how fast sports rights were growing, nor did they foresee UT, UT, and USC joining the SEC and B10. It was naive on their parts to sign such a long deal, but that had been the trend for some deals. The BTN deal is long. The SEC/CBS deal is 15-years long.
LikeLike
Marc: “But even Jack Swarbrick acknowledged that there are conditions that could push ND to join a conference. He is a trained lawyer and chooses his words carefully.”
Marc, it is all part of the Irish hogwash. Don’t be duped. They are laying out bait for the naive so they can jack up the payout from the NBC-ND-Big Ten deal. Please, don’t swallow it hook, line and sinker.
LikeLike
You need to get over ND ending the rivalry with PU, or whatever your hang up is with them.
LikeLike
Brian: “You need to get over ND ending the rivalry with PU, or whatever your hang up is with them.”
That’s not a hang up with me. Purdue played ND the past two years and they’re scheduled for 2024, 25, 26, 27 and 28.
LikeLike
Doug,
ND’s deal said they couldn’t join anyone but the ACC in football through 2036. As with all sports contracts, they can buy their way out of it.
Or they could stay independent and just start playing a lot of B10 teams. They could buy out of their 5 ACC games deal and play more B10 games without officially being a member, but getting paid as part of an NBC/B10/ND TV deal.
LikeLike
They might also be able to swing a deal with Ohio St. and Michigan taking over some of those ND-ACC obligations. There are lots of options. There aren’t as many options for FSU, Clemson, etc.
LikeLike
…they could stay independent and just start playing a lot of B10 teams.
A typical ND schedule consists of five ACC games, the three annual rivals (Navy, USC, Stanford), and two buy games. That leaves them with two that are flexible — but they are playing a Big Ten team already in most years, leaving room to add just one more. They could stop the buy games, but that means toughening up the schedule and playing teams that would require a return game.
LikeLike
It’s not rocket science. I’m not saying they could play 8 B10 games per year that way.
2 buy games + 5 ACC + Navy = 8
B10:
1. USC
2. Stanford (possibly)
3. One of UM/MSU/PU as a home and home
4. Another B10 team
And that’s if they don’t choose not to play all 5 ACC games, and maybe drop it to 3 or 4 and pay a penalty instead. Maybe ND agrees to play 2.5 ACC road games but plays the B10 or others at home.
LikeLike
Ah, it would help if I didn’t double-count USC and Stanford. However, I am not quite sure what type of membership that is.
LikeLike
Marc,
For that bit, it was ND staying independent to not break that contract. They just chose to play a lot of B10 games, and were part of a special NBC/ND/B10 TV deal to get paid more for it.
The next step would be to go to 6 B10 games with the B10 replacing ND in a couple of the contracted ACC games (would need to be negotiated, but playing USC or OSU or UM or PSU shouldn’t be a big disappointment). Maybe it would only be for the the ACC’s road games, who knows?
LikeLike
ND has many interlocking commitments. First, it’s an ACC member in all sports except football. There is an ACC exit fee, and it is pretty steep. We don’t know if ND’s fee would be the same as the all-sports members.
Second, it granted its media rights to the conference until 2036. This, of course, only applies to the rights the ACC owns, so it does not include ND’s most valuable rights, its home football games.
Third, it committed to play 5 football games per year against the ACC. We have no idea whether ND would pay a penalty for exiting this deal that is separate from the first two above.
Fourth, if ND joins any conference in football, it must join the ACC. Unlike the first three, this is an NCAA rule. You cannot place a sport in a different conference if your primary conference sponsors it. Hence, ND can play hockey in the Big Ten, as the ACC doesn’t have hockey. It cannot do so with football. We don’t know if ND’s commitment on this is more ironclad than the NCAA rule, or if it merely confirmed it would follow the existing rule.
It’s normal for contracts to have clauses that state what the consequences would be if broken. An earlier version of the grant of rights is available online, so we have a pretty good idea of how that one would work. The others are unknown.
LikeLike
@Marc – I don’t think the fourth point is necessarily true (although there have been a lot of mixed reports on that over the years). I believe that’s really a rule that a conference might have about its members participating in all sports that the league sponsors, but it’s not necessarily mandated by the NCAA. So, in theory, Notre Dame could join the Big Ten as a football-only member and leave the rest of its sports in the ACC just in the same way that ND can be an independent despite the fact that the ACC sponsors football. (I could be wrong on that, so if anyone can point any specific NCAA language, that would be helpful.)
LikeLike
I agree with you. It has to do with the definition of a conference. The Big 10 couldn’t count the school as a member in that case. But if you are well above the minimum numbers in all sports for an auto bid to the NCAA championships, its not an issue.
It hasn’t happened because schools logically keep their revenue sports together.
LikeLike
Frank,
That’s my current understanding as well. The NCAA has rules for I-A membership, and for conferences, but I couldn’t find anything linking them. It would be different if we’re discussing different divisions, but as long as ND has enough sports sponsored it seems to be what the conferences will allow. If anyone has a link to the NCAA rule that forbids this, I’d also like to see it.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/news/notre-dame-join-big-ten-future-irish/zteje9akz0h2iwgkwlgeuehd#
The Irish are hitched to a pair of television contracts. The deal with NBC runs through 2025 and draws approximately $15 million per year. ESPN’s contract with the ACC runs through 2036. 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.
LikeLike
As long as ND doesn’t join the B1G officially, it could play all its 7 non-ACC games entirely against B1G teams.
LikeLike
As long as ND doesn’t join the B1G officially, it could play all its 7 non-ACC games entirely against B1G teams.
They would have to drop Navy and their buy games, and yet they wouldn’t be a full member nor would be eligible for a full payout. I can scarcely imagine them doing this.
LikeLike
Marc,
They wouldn’t do it, and he’s not saying they would but that they could without breaking any of their deals, and the B10 could pay them whatever they wanted for doing it. It wouldn’t be a full share because it’s only 7 games and no other sports, but ND wanted $75M from NBC for 7 games so it wouldn’t be a small payout.
LikeLike
Marc,
Do you have a cite for the NCAA rule? I’ve heard it before, but I couldn’t easily find it anywhere.
I’ve found it as a conference rule (https://static.bigskyconf.com/custompages/Code14-15/OPERATING%20CODE%202014-2015.pdf), but not an NCAA rule.
ND signed an agreement with the ACC that they wouldn’t join anyone else in football. I don’t think they would have bothered with that if the NCAA rules already required that.
LikeLike
It is one of those things I have heard over the years, but don’t have a cite for.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3465138/2022/08/01/3465138-pac12-usc-ucla-realignment/
“It’s clear that UCLA and USC made a decision for short-term financial gain at the expense of their student-athletes,” Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff told The Athletic on Friday. “It’s 100 percent clear to me. It’s really unfortunate, and I think they are already regretting it, given the pushback that they’ve gotten from almost every corner of their communities. I think they will regret it more as time goes on.”
I haven’t seen many signs of regret from USC, or even all that much pushback. UCLA has had more pushback as a state school that is leaving its sister school behind, but I don’t think they regret the decision either. They may regret their approach.
“The surprising part, to me, is the Pac-12 has a mission that is related to the health and well-being of its student-athletes, and this is a decision that, in my opinion, goes directly against the health and well-being of student-athletes. That’s the surprise for me.”
More money can pay for more support staff, technology, and better modes of transportation. A few longer road trips doesn’t have to be a net negative. They already have to fly to most P12 opponents.
LikeLike
I’m sure the next Randy Johnson looks forward to March and April games in the upper Midwest, showcasing their talents on the big stage that is B1G baseball.
LikeLike
March and April in WA, OR, CO, and UT aren’t exactly balmy. NoCal too, for that matter when that is the rainy season over there. And that’s where over half the Pac schools are located now.
As for the competitiveness of the league, CSU Fullerton always has several future major leaguers on its roster playing in the Big West.
And before all is said and done, several more of the LA schools’ old Pac buddies may be joining them.
LikeLike
CO doesn’t sponsor baseball. Maybe global warming will alleviate their weather concerns.
A lot of the non P5 teams in the SW get hosed come selection time.
I’m just grumpy. A conference I care about is making it real easy to say college sports are dying, and it’s actively instigating. Had U$C gone independent we wouldn’t be stabbing a long time partner by picking them up.
Grrr. (Old man yelling at cloud gif)
LikeLike
Would it help if they back date an announcement declaring their independence as of 2024, then that they’ll join the B10? And UCLA just followed the leader.
LikeLike
Also, WI doesn’t sponsor baseball either. That leaves UMN as the only really northern upper midwest school playing in the B10. And since the Twins are playing by April, a college player shouldn’t be too scared of it if they want to be in MLB.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
It sure beats the hell out of playing intramural baseball at UCLA because they had to cut the sport. I’d think a wrestling fan would be more supportive of a school maintaining a broad athletics program. Maybe UCLA will even start wrestling.
As for midwestern baseball, it worked out okay for Kyle Schwarber. While not quite Randy Johnson, I seem to recall he has done okay in MLB. I’ve heard of him, so he must be reasonably well known. JA Happ? Nick Swisher? Joba Chamberlain?
If modern players that aren’t HOFers don’t count, how about:
Barry Larkin? Lou Boudreau? Robin Roberts? Paul Molitor? Dave Winfield?
UMI has more former players (3) in the baseball hall of fame than any other school. UMN is tied for second (2).
Mike Schmidt played at Ohio U. Bob Gibson went to Creighton. Craig Biggio went to Seton Hall. Lou Gehrig played at Columbia. Yaz played at Notre Dame. Carlton Fisk went to New Hampshire. Sandy Koufax played at Cincinnati. All these locations have clear B10 parallels geographically.
In other words, it’s doable. And it’s only a few series each year. Maybe even fewer than normal, as the rest of the B10 may prefer to play at the LA schools to get B10 games in earlier.
LikeLike
“Maybe UCLA will even start wrestling.”
BwaaaHaaaa…(gasp for air).
They dropped in the 80’s with their best team, and best recruiting class in the west. That group helped OU and Iowa during their heights.
USC has never wrestled, ever.
For those schools sports I hope you are right, but evidence suggests it’s very unlikely. I believe this move (and others like it) will have a negative effect on sports in general. In fact it would not be surprising to find that the other Pac/B12 schools will already be preparing contingency plans for what cuts need to be made if media rights are at various levels below expectations or hopes.
LikeLike
SC also has no men’s soccer team, although LAFC plays at Banc of California Stadium, on the former site of the Los Angeles Sports Arena and near the LA Memorial Coliseum.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
I agree, adding wrestling is unlikely. And the rest of the P12 might now consider cutting sports as money decreases (Stanford wrestling at risk again?). But UCLA had said it was considering cutting sports to reduce their deficits going forward, so we have to factor that into the equation. In a more perfect world, all schools would be in compact geographical conferences that allowed for short bus trips for road games. USC and UCLA were already flying to Seattle, Spokane, Portland, Denver, and Salt Lake City (and maybe SF and Phoenix) for road conference games. They were going further in some sports for OOC games/meets.
Yes, a typical B10 flight will probably be 2 hours longer on average. But most sports take very few road trips in conference play, and many of those are weekend games. The vast majority of games are at home or OOC (location can be controlled by the school). The pain can be reduced through smart choices. Plus some of their sports are in the MPSF, and so will stay local.
The B12 schools may also cut sports, and that stinks. But the B10 had no part in that, and didn’t instigate USC and UCLA moving either.
I think most structural changes since 1984 have had a negative impact on sports in terms of the athletes. This particular move may preserve teams at UCLA (and maybe even USC), but at the cost of teams at Cal and Stanford (the 2 other schools with 30+ sports). On the other hand, the Ivies maintain even broader athletic programs on much less money.
LikeLike
On the other hand, the Ivies maintain even broader athletic programs on much less money.
They do not spent lavishly on facilities and coach salaries. They certainly don’t spend anything on athletic scholarships, since they don’t have any. As long as they agree not to join the sports arms race, they will always be fine.
LikeLike
Marc,
That’s true, but they offer massive need-based financial aid packages to students and those can’t get taken away if you quit playing or get cut. With many athletes not coming from wealthy families, it can work out quite well.
LikeLike
Brian, yes, but the Ivies are going to maintain their need-based scholarship pool even if they cut all sports, so there’s no difference there, just in the type of kids who get in and attend on fin aid (athletes vs non-athletes).
LikeLike
Yes. I’m just pointing out that while they don’t give athletic scholarships, they do give a lot of scholarships to their athletes (just like the other students). It’s not like all their athletes are paying full tuition to attend, which is what many think happens.
LikeLike
Big Ten baseball played 24 conference games this year. So UCLA and USC would have 12 conference road games. UCLA played 64 games last year, USC 53.
LikeLike
greg,
And we know one of them would be playing at the other for 3 of those games. Maybe the B10 let’s them play 2 series, one at each place, leaving just 3 weekend trips for each. Those can all be in April so it’ll be decently warm.
LikeLike
This person has a 3 page writeup “documenting” B10 expansion behind the scenes, as well as predicting next steps. Apparently the B10 will go international in our lifetime (how old does he/she think we are?) – I presume with UToronto.
https://twitter.com/Genetics56/status/1554255560970756096
LikeLike
I read it. Seems kind of ridiculous, honestly. He claims the Big Ten was looking into adding Missouri and Toronto as recently as early 2021. Neither makes much sense. Missouri is making tons of money in the SEC and would have little financial incentive to move. Toronto does not have a football team as far as I know, or at least not one that would be competitive in the U.S. Then he goes on to say the Big Ten will expand to 24 or 28 schools. That seems highly unlikely. 20, sure. 24 would be a pretty big stretch without diluting the money significantly. 28? Not sure how that would work or why they’d even want to.
LikeLike
Andy,
The Toronto idea has been floated before, but mainly including them for Hockey much like John Hopkins for Lacrosse.
Toronto does have a football team. Canadien college FB isn’t that popular like the in the States. Also Canadiens are very provincial about Canadien Football so I could never see them changing to American rules.
Again the talk was for Hockey which wasn’t total crazy. Also U of T is an AAU school.
LikeLike
It’s only somewhat crazy. University hockey in Canada is on the Div III level and draws about as much interest.
LikeLike
I think that thought of Toronto joining the Big Ten in hockey is crazy in the sense that the United States is truly unique in that it cares about and follows college sports with great interest. Canada is like most of the rest of the world where college sports are looked at as more of a regular extracurricular activity that isn’t much of a spectator sport and certainly isn’t monetized in the way that it is in the US. We constantly talk about whether places like NYC or the SF Bay Area follow college sports at a material level, but the point is that Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and all of the other major Canadian markets don’t follow college sports at *all*. University of Toronto sports interest in its home market isn’t even in the vicinity of San Jose State-level or Big West/WCC-level interest in the SF Bay Area, much less schools like Cal and Stanford.
I don’t have firsthand experience (so any Canadian reading this can feel free to chime in), but my understanding is that the Canadian Junior Hockey League is a significantly bigger deal in Canada compared to college hockey and the better CJHL players that exhaust their eligibility and don’t get drafted directly by NHL franchises actually much prefer going to US college hockey teams compared to Canadian college hockey teams because US universities place such a significantly higher emphasis on athletics (along with the funding of scholarships to go with it).
Essentially, college sports at any non-US university is effectively worthless from a TV value standpoint if the idea is to draw interest from local fans. In other countries, the top athletes go through athletic training systems that are totally separate from the university system, whether it’s the aforementioned CJHL for hockey in Canada or the soccer training academies directly run by clubs in Europe.
LikeLike
Frank,
The junior leagues are to the NHL in Canada much like P5 football is to the NFL, or like NCAA hoops to the NBA. It’s where most of the top players come from.
UToronto hasn’t had an alumnus in the NHL since the 1980s. Players that do well in Canadian college hockey usually go pro quickly to develop faster, like a D-III players transferring to I-A.
https://thehockeynews.com/news/as-u-sports-players-sit-sidelined-two-alumni-make-nhl-impact
According to U Sports expert and TSN broadcaster Victor Findlay, Thompson became the first U Sports alum to get an NHL start since former University of Manitoba netminder George Maneluk started for the New York Islanders on Oct. 28, 1990. Thompson did get a relief appearance back in March, which, at the time, made him the first U Sports alum to see any action in an NHL crease since ex-Laurier goaltender Rob Dopson got into relief action on April 9, 1994.
Thompson played 24 games with Brock University in 2018-19 after growing up in Western Canada, winning a WHL championship with the Brandon Wheat Kings in 2015-16. His U Sports tenure was short, but he won the OUA West’s goalie of the year award, the rookie of the year trophy, and was named to the first and all-rookie all-star teams before electing to go pro in 2019-20. Thompson was tremendous in the ECHL and earned his first full-time AHL gig.
…
And Thompson isn’t alone in the U Sports-to-NHL route over the past few days. On Sunday, San Jose’s Zach Sawchenko allowed just one goal in relief of James Reimer, who allowed six goals on 17 shots against Pittsburgh. It marked Sawchenko’s first NHL game action, just three years after making his mark as one of the best university goaltenders in Canada with a 16-2-1 record and five shutouts in 19 games with the University of Alberta in 2018-19.
Sawchenko won the U Sports University Cup championship the year before that after four years of high-level hockey with the WHL’s Moose Jaw Warriors.
…
U Sports has never been a major developer of NHL talent, but it’s far from a dead-end. Joel Ward, Steve Rucchin, Cory Cross, Stu Grimson, P.J. Stock and current NHLer Derek Ryan are among some of the more notable names to make it to the NHL using the route. No big-name players typically come from U Sports, but it has proven to be a legitimate path for some players. One of Canada’s best options at center for the 2022 Olympics, Philippe Maillet, played four years with the University of New Brunswick, winning the U Sports AUS MVP title in 2015 and 2017 and was the University Cup’s top player en route to a championship in 2017.
…
U Sports isn’t at the level of the NCAA, and most of the top Canadian university players typically don’t make it past the AHL, but they’re still churning out a high number of pro players each year.
LikeLike
Yep. Very few universities outside the US even give athletic scholarships (Canadian unis do but they tend to be a pittance and can cover tuition at most). Japan probably the only other country where at least some pro athletes go to college to develop (because Keio and Waseda care about beating each other and are massive schools; they’ve been called the Harvard and Yale of Japan because they are the best privates in Japan but as UTokyo and the old imperial unis, all publics, are the top research unis in Japan, they are more like USC and . . . another USC).
LikeLike
You said you liked rumors. He’s nothing but rumors.
LikeLike
I like credible rumors. I don’t really care about crackpot rumors.
LikeLike
When Toronto was first floated as a possible B1G member, SUNY Buffalo was suggested as a playmate. That actually made some sort of sense. Buffalo is AAU and has a very good academic/research reputation; plays in the MAC, and fields a large number of sports, including football; is a big state school (but not land grant); actually extends the B1G footprint; is a major TV market; already has pro sports.
However, it is hard to believe that Buffalo would enhance the B1G’s TV handle. It looks to be dilutative. (Hats off to whoever invented that word!). I suspect Toronto would be, too.
The northeast is not good college football territory; its strictly professional sports. UMass coudn’t make in in the MAC, and no one in Mass cared.
LikeLike
Toronto partner would be McGill, the flagship university of Quebec. They are Canada’s two AAU members.
https://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/features/birth-3-sports
LikeLike
The northeast is not good college football territory; its strictly professional sports. UMass coudn’t make in in the MAC, and no one in Mass cared.
It’s hard to say whether the teams don’t exist because there are no fans; or the fans don’t exist because there are no teams. There certainly are successful college basketball programs in the Northeast, so there is no bias against college sports overall. The Big Ten added Rutgers for the New York market, and the revenue has been terrific, despite the terrible football there.
In my experience, there is a high density of college sports fans in the Northeast, but their allegiances are spread out because there are no powerhouse teams in the region. In the infancy of the sport, the great teams in the Northeast were at private schools, but at some point the private schools stopped trying to keep up with the public ones elsewhere in the country. I believe Yale used to be a regular guest in the Top 20.
The public university football programs in the Northeast don’t have a history that goes back generations. SUNY Buffalo has been a state school only since 1962, and up to the mid-1960s (if not later) they played in Division II. Rutgers was private until 1945, and up to the early 1960s their athletics were in Division III. UConn was in Division II until the late 1970s.
LikeLike
Marc,
Correct. State schools have largely been viewed as inferior in the northeast. In part that’s because they’ve had some elite private schools since well before the US was formed. They also had European attitudes towards education.
The land grants and other state schools are viewed more favorably in areas where agriculture and forestry are key industries, and where no Ivies were founded 300 years ago.
LikeLike
If you follow the history, it’s mostly because the Northeast already had a lot of privates (like the Ivies) with powerful alums who didn’t want public unis to usurp the privates there, so the politicians there (often alums of Ivies/privates) deliberately kept their state publics weak while in the Midwest and elsewhere, politicians grew their publics.
LikeLike
One nuance about the way the Northeast views public universities versus the rest of the country: I think the perception that the Northeast is uniquely focused on the elite privates like the Ivy League is a overstated, but people tend to understate the higher prevalence of the “next tier” private universities in that region that take a lot of students that likely would have gone to public flagships if they lived elsewhere.
Speaking as someone that has lived in the Chicago suburbs for most of my life and still lives there, the parents and students here are just as obsessed with getting into the Ivy League schools or elite privates like Northwestern, University of Chicago and Stanford as the equivalent NYC suburbs. I don’t believe the focus on the elite private universities is materially different in upper middle class enclaves across the country.
However, what I *do* think is quite different is that when a Chicago suburbanite doesn’t get into an Ivy/Ivy-level school, the typical course is for that person to go to Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue or similar large public university. In contrast, that similarly situated student in the Northeast is the prime target for large private schools that have enrollments that are on par with public flagships, such as NYU, BU, Northeastern and Syracuse. Those are the types of large private schools that don’t really have a corollary in the Midwest or other parts of the US with the exception of maybe USC’s position in California.
In summary, everyone everywhere wants to go to Harvard, Yale and Princeton. That’s not unique to the Northeast. However, what the the Northeast has are several large enrollment private schools like NYU, BU, Northeastern and Syracuse, so they’re taking a lot of students that would have gone to a public flagship if they had lived in the Midwest or other parts of the country.
LikeLike
Or even better publics outside the Northeast (like B10 publics) as well as a plethora of LACs.
All driven by alums of privates in the Northeast a century or more ago deliberately keeping their local publics weak.
LikeLike
Frank, I would say DFW is similar to what you describe. There were about 50 students in AP English in my HS and only 2 of us went to UT. There were about 15 who went to UT, but it was the next tier of students, few of the very top students. Most were trying to get into the elite eastern privates. I had a national merit scholarship and I remember someone asking me, “Well then why did you go to Texas?”
LikeLike
Growing up more rurally in a public high school, it wasn’t like that. Very few students considered anything but the B10 schools, the small privates, and the lesser state schools. Much of that is they didn’t think they had a shot at getting accepted, but many also didn’t think they could afford it. UM was the elite choice, along with some of the small privates (Hillsdale, Hope, Albion, …). By far the most common choice was the local CC. My brother was one of the exceptions, choosing Duke (he had a full ride).
https://www.mlive.com/news/erry-2018/05/3f2ff604553639/see_where_michigan_colleges_ge.html
Of the 102,334 public school students in Michigan’s Class of 2017, about 61 percent — 62,806 — enrolled in college with six months of leaving high school, according to state data.
The No. 1 destination: Michigan State University, which enrolled more than 5,000 of those students.
…
This post looks at the top high schools sending students to each of Michigan’s 15 public universities and 24 private colleges. It also includes data for the 15 community colleges enrolling the most students from the Class of 2017.
…
A few highlights from the data:
About 89 percent of college-going students stayed in Michigan;
About 45 percent enrolled at a Michigan public university;
About 36 percent enrolled at a Michigan community college;
About 9 percent enrolled at a Michigan private college.
Of the 11 percent going out-of-state, the No. 1 destination was University of Toledo, which enrolled 467 Michigan public school students from the Class of 2017.
Among those who went to elite schools: 22 Michigan public-school grads went to Harvard; 18 to University of Chicago; 17 to Northwestern University and 13 enrolled at Yale.
That’s 70 out of over 100,000 students. That means about 1000 applied to those schools. It’s key to note that these are public HS students only. I’m sure the private HS have a higher percentage considering the elite schools.
LikeLike
Going way back to the 1960s, things were different. At that time, Rutgers College was 5000 men and the girl’s school, Douglas was across town in New Brunswick and had 3000 women.
Douglas was openly called the eighth sister of the “Ivy” Seven Sisters. Probably at least the top 20 of the class at either Rutgers College or Douglass would have been very comfortable that Princeton, Penn or Columbia, the three Ivies either in NJ or on its border. Army was also a regular on the schedule, since it was about 100 miles away.
Of course, Rutgers football schedule went along with the view of the school. They played Princeton, Columbia, Lehigh, and Lafayette every year and Yale and Cornell frequently. That was the RU football schedule up into the 1970s. Long way from there to the B1G.
The prevalence of excellent non-Ivy schools such as Lafayette and Lehigh was another factor in the northeast, way back when.
There were lots of reasons to go to Rutgers, specifically including money, though tuition was peanuts back then compared to our world. There were also many top students at Rutgers who were the first in the family to go to college, so they did not really look at Ivy options. Kids who went to Ivies were often legacies, or at least had parents who had college degrees and directed them.
Most of my friends who went to grad school went to the Ivies, or the equivalent, MIT, T-14 law schools, U Chicago, etc., but back then not so many went to grad school at B1G schools.
Once the middle of the class was reached, RU was not equivalent to the middle of the class at the Ivies. The Ivies by definition had no bottom of the class, which RU had even then.
I am not sure if that is still true about the top of the RU class, but it might be. The middle and bottom are certainly far less selective now than 50 or 60 years ago
LikeLike
Brian, Frank and I were talking about upper middle class suburbia. Before DFW, I started HS in a middle, middle class school in Houston. The kids there mostly stayed at home at U of H, although some went to A&M and a half dozen or so of us went to UT. So it was more like your rural school.
LikeLike
Bullet,
I know. I was just throwing out the comparison, especially since I found that article.
My school was an odd mix of rural with a touch of what was similar to upper middle class suburbia. There were some private lakes with much nicer homes mixed into a school district that was otherwise rural. Wealthy people from the Detroit area would buy homes for the relative value, plus the wealthier people that worked in the area (doctors, executives, etc.). A decent chunk of those kids went to the local Catholic high school instead of going public, though.
This is probably more relevant.
LikeLike
College tuition has outpaced how much people earn by almost 10x. Unsustainable. We’ll probably have virtual campuses before.the ACC GOR expires. -Not that the metaverse couldn’t field a heck of a Super Conference 😊
LikeLike
Also: Even if the ACC GOR does somehow survive with all members in tact (it won’t), all the ACC’s best coaches and hot prospects will have long abandoned the conference for the greener paychecks of the SEC/B1G. To say nothing of the conference’s inability to compete on the NIL front.
LikeLike
EWME – I’ve have been thinking the same thing.
For the sake of this exercise let’s say the each SEC & B1G school “only” make an average of $80m each year for the next 12 years and optimistically say that each ACC/B12/PAC school makes $40m per year.
When the ACC GOR expires, each SEC & B1G would have lapped the field by almost 1/2 Billion. We have been assuming that UW, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, UNC, UVA, FSU, Miami & Clemson will be in relatively the same condition they are in now, but they won’t. The difference between a B1G/SEC school and the rest will have never been greater.
By the mid 2030s, will it even be worth picking up the remnants of these once proud institutions? If so, the SEC/B1G may need a “Marshall Plan” to rebuild the programs.
Will the fans of the ACC/B12/PAC schools even care by that point?
As their schools fall a decade plus behind the SEC/B1G, will they move on to support their area pro sports even more? With the exception of Oregon, all are in fairly close proximity to NFL teams.
How can the ACC/B12/PAC keep up over the next decade? I assume across college sports, donations will go down as boosters will also be asked to contribute to NIL collectives and there’s only so much money to go around. Its safe to assume that as the level of play and quality of the conference goes down, donations to ACC/B12/PAC schools will also go down. Increasing student fees or state appropriations will certainly be unpopular.
I know this may sound apocalyptic, but being down at least a half a billion is a deep hole.
LikeLike
Alan: “Will the fans of the ACC/B12/PAC schools even care by that point?”
I think for some teams that answer will be no and some it will be yes. I have a hard time seeing certain schools losing their fanbases — ND, Clemson, FSU, UNC, BYU. Schools that both currently and historically have had strong fanbases. It’d be hard for me to think that OkSt, Texas Tech, TCU, etc. would be finished just because they’re located in or by Texas.
But UVA, Cal, Kansas, maybe an Arizona or Duke or even Stanford? More than a couple I could see over the next two decades deciding the football race is no longer worth the escalating investment and accepting they aren’t going to compete at the highest tier any longer.
Perhaps the more interesting question is for the programs that are tweeners for one reason or another. Oregon and Miami for example. Miami fans don’t care now.
I honestly don’t know what the tea leaves say for Oregon long term. Recent success could see them getting into the B10 as a partner, but there’s a few issues with the sniff test where I could just as easily see them getting left out. By 2036 odds are good Phil Knight is no longer alive to advocate for them, regardless of if he has a donation set up or not. When combined with all of the other hypothetical factors discussed it feels like Oregon could be at a real crossroads with their future trajectory.
LikeLike
I do think now that Stanford/Cal/UW only join the B10 if ND says “yes”.
What changed your mind?
LikeLike
Extremely few schools pull a U of C and drop down willingly. Heck, Rice still is clinging to FBS. They may decide not to compete after they’ve already been demoted (like the Ivies), but in that case, they wouldn’t gain a lot of sports revenue anyway so they’re not giving up a lot. Even Stanford and Duke, much less Miami and UO, aren’t going to stop trying to compete.
LikeLike
Agreed. I had a pretty long Twitter thread on this a few days ago: way too many people look at “emphasizing football” and “emphasizing sports” as one and the same when that’s a complete misnomer. Duke has a HUGE emphasis on sports, but it just happens to be on basketball as opposed to football. When it comes to basketball, Duke recruits the EXACT same way as Kentucky and arguably has the most capitalistic NIL machine to support its hoops program out of anyone in the country. Duke’s recruiting for basketball is as far away from the Harvard approach as Alabama’s recruiting for football.
Similarly, Stanford has arguably the best top-to-bottom athletic departments in the country. This school has won 2 Rose Bowls in the last decade, which is more than what Texas and USC (the two primary schools that have triggered realignment chaos again) have done during that time period. If Stanford was its own country, it would have ranked in the top 10 countries in medals in the 2020 Summer Olympics – more than places like Canada, Brazil and Spain. Stanford just made the College World Series the past two seasons in baseball. Overall, Stanford has won at least one national championship in one of its sports programs every single year for the past 46 years, which is a streak that no other school can touch. Stanford attracts the ELITE of the ELITE athletes and recruits potential national champions and Olympians.
The point is that anyone that thinks schools like Stanford and Duke are looking to have an Ivy League-model for athletics isn’t understanding just how core athletic excellence (which isn’t necessarily the same as pure football excellence) at the very top level is to those institutions.
LikeLike
Extremely few schools pull a U of C and drop down willingly. Heck, Rice still is clinging to FBS. They may decide not to compete after they’ve already been demoted (like the Ivies), but in that case, they wouldn’t gain a lot of sports revenue anyway so they’re not giving up a lot….
The biggest drops occur when the NCAA creates a new division or sub-division (like I-A/AA), and schools need to decide which level they will be. Some of the Ivies could have met the I-A requirements and decided not to. Those on the borderline could have invested, but chose not to.
Maybe there will be a new formal subdivision, cleaving Division I into three subgroups instead of the current two. That would give a bunch of schools a big decision to make.
LikeLike
Well, that assumes that interest would fall a lot of these schools can’t win national titles.
That might be true in the big urban areas of the West and Northeast, but there are places like TX that can’t get enough football. As I’d mentioned before, that is the biggest strength of the B12 (and what led to the B12 CCG, featuring 2 non-kings, to almost double the viewership of the Pac CCG and more than triple the viewership of the ACC CCG).
Sure, they’d watch Texas/A&M/OU, but they’d watch plenty of B12 games too (so long as they’re not on at the same time).
As for attractive teams, as I’ve noted before, really only ND and FSU are additive to the B10 and SEC now. It’s possible that by the 2030’s even FSU (and Clemson and Miami) won’t be, though
1. Those 3 schools will always have the advantage of favorable geography (being located in a hotbed of football talent).
2. The B10 and SEC may want to take ACC teams for nonfinancial reasons (the B10 for demographics; the SEC UNC/UVa/Duke for prestige, both academic and in basketball).
I do think now that Stanford/Cal/UW only join the B10 if ND says “yes”.
LikeLike
😂 -Oh gosh. That makes the Big Ten the……
LikeLike
Yes, the Big20.
Brian, I still think that it makes long-term sense for the B10 to add all of ND, Stanford, Cal, UW, UNC, Duke, UVA, Miami, FSU, GTech if possible, but I am not in charge of the B10.
LikeLike
Precisely. A ‘Marshall Plan’ to rebuild them. 👍 luv it!
LikeLike
Thanks. In the last thread, I did compare the B1G/PAC “alliance” to the Soviet German non-aggression pact.
LikeLike
(Oops. See my comment above)
LikeLike
What prevents them from competing in NIL? Miami is throwing cash around. Others could too.
LikeLike
The problem still remains that if Miami gets a really good coach and they are paying, say $8,000,000 or so per year (Cristobal), nothing will stop an SEC or B1G school from offering the coach a raise to $10 million. It might be tough for Miami to replace that coach.
That is what happened to FSU when T A&M “stole” Jimbo Fisher in 2017 with a $75 million ten year contract that FSU could not possibly match. After winning the national championship in 2013, FSU has yet to recover from that. There are some that say that the program, and Fisher, lost their touch after that 2013 season, but FSU did not want Fisher to leave.
I can say as a matter of absolute certainty, the thing that keeps the AD etc at FSU awake all night is not even the mediocre records the last few years, but the looming huge financial advantage of UF.
Yes, right now Miami fans have NIL money to throw around. How many other P5, tier two conferences can say that? Even if they can now, the really huge spread in funds is still two or three years away. Eventually many of those ACC, B12, or PAC schools will seriously start to suffer, even if Miami hangs in there.
So, I have another question. If the ACC sports, particularly football, start suffering big time in three or four years, what will happen to TV value? Will ESPN find it in its own best interest to significantly increase payouts to the ACC?
Or shockingly decide that maybe the network and the conference need to shorten the GOR and TV contract? Yes, teams like Wake, BC, probably Syracuse, and others will not want to end the contract, since even the meager amount from ESPN might be more than they will get elsewhere. If ESPN and enough other teams agree, I am sure that there will be a financial way to keep the dissenters happy.
LikeLike
Bernie,
If ACC football gets worse, ESPN will be glad their TV deal is so low valued. And they’ll use that in negotiations, pointing out how they didn’t even mention reducing it even when ratings cratered.
ESPN won’t add money unless a new revenue stream come from the ACC. Would they give up ABC games to play on ESPN+ instead if ESPN paid more for it? Would they play all weeknight games?
LikeLike
Bernie: “Yes, right now Miami fans have NIL money to throw around. How many other P5, tier two conferences can say that? Even if they can now, the really huge spread in funds is still two or three years away. Eventually many of those ACC, B12, or PAC schools will seriously start to suffer, even if Miami hangs in there.”
Even now there’s been some scuttlebutt that Miami’s NIL is being overextended and is unsustainable long term. They came out of the gate this year recruiting football like gangbusters, but recently have lost out on more than a couple recruits they were expected to get based on NIL offers. You’re seeing it with Tennessee as well; both were quick to commit to big NIL moves in the hopes of getting back to the top, but eventually the behemoth programs turn the battleship and things return to expected. Alabama is back to basically picking who they want, as has been the case for like 15 years now.
Moreover, if I’m Miami’s AD, I don’t want my job and program to be beholden entirely to the NIL winds. Especially if we start seeing a move towards top end programs revenue sharing with athletes, where those media contracts will be a huge factor in recruiting.
LikeLike
If the ACC sports, particularly football, start suffering big time in three or four years, what will happen to TV value? Will ESPN find it in its own best interest to significantly increase payouts to the ACC?
The trouble is, a competitive deficit takes years to rectify. It’s not like you can pour in a bunch of money this year, and they start winning in 2025. What’s more likely is that the non-revenue sports will suffer. Someone posted here that Clemson spends more money on football than Ohio State.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, that was me. Clemson currently outspends OSU on football ($48.0M to $45.2M), because they put a much larger percentage of their money into CFB (41% to 27%). Of course, if the gap gets large enough at some point they can’t do that. OSU already leads Clemson by over $50M in total revenue.
LikeLike
Jimbo Fisher is the perfect example of what the ACC has in store.
LikeLike
EWME: “Jimbo Fisher is the perfect example of what the ACC has in store.”
Conversely, look at Michigan State and Mel Tucker. It’s not just the ability for top programs to spend more to lure coaches, but for the lower programs to be able to spend enough to not get their good coaches poached so easily. Tucker was supposedly being looked at by LSU before MSU extended his contract, though I don’t know how seriously.
Even though donors primarily paid for Tucker’s ridiculous salary, it’s easier to ask for that when you’re not also asking them to help fund lacrosse, hockey, baseball, etc.
LikeLike
Clemson currently outspends OSU on football ($48.0M to $45.2M), because they put a much larger percentage of their money into CFB (41% to 27%).
Clemson fields 19 varsity teams while OSU has 33. The B1G schools across the board field more teams than the SEC, which allows them to spend a higher ptg on football. Number of sports by conference: B1G 28, ACC 27, P12 24, B12 21, SEC 20.
LikeLike
greg,
Yes, it’s one of those cultural differences that make the P12 more like the B10. The B10 averages 24.4 teams per school. The P12 has about 22.8, and the ACC 22.5. The B12 averages 18.6 and the SEC 19.8.
LikeLike
Even though donors primarily paid for Tucker’s ridiculous salary, it’s easier to ask for that when you’re not also asking them to help fund lacrosse, hockey, baseball, etc.
Tucker got that salary despite a career 18–14 record as a collegiate coach. However, it does include 2–0 against Michigan. If he were 22–10 but 0–2 against Michigan, I don’t think he gets that contract.
LikeLike
“That is what happened to FSU when T A&M “stole” Jimbo Fisher in 2017 with a $75 million ten year contract that FSU could not possibly match”
FSU’s financial competitiveness problem goes beyond the head coach’s salary.
There was one summer 7ish years ago when I saw that 2 SEC programs (I want to say it was Tennessee and South Carolina) each hired an FSU assistant to the exact same position they held at FSU. From the articles I read, Fisher wanted to keep the assistants, but FSU didn’t have the money to keep them from making lateral moves to mid-tier SEC schools. This was the time when SEC schools first started to spend big on assistant salaries.
I remember thinking at the time that FSU’s time as an elite program was over. A head coach by himself can only do so much.
In the last years of Fisher’s time at FSU (before I had any inking he would ever end up at A&M) I saw some comments from FSU fans who were angry at Fisher for being too loyal to bad assistants. Again, I thought they didn’t realize their own limitations: they didn’t have the money to hire someone proven, and any young guy they hired would get hired away if he turned out to be good.
It wasn’t just his salary that attracted Fisher to A&M; A&M’s spending on assistants and facilities is competitive with anyone and far beyond what FSU was spending. Fisher’s assistants at A&M have been well-represented in media lists of best assistants, best recruiters, etc.
ESPN did an article a year or 2 ago going over FSU’s troubles, and it hit many of these points. Fisher had told the administration he would be happy to replace some of his underperforming assistants, as long as they gave him the money to get someone good. And they never got the facility upgrades he wanted.
LikeLike
College tuition has outpaced how much people earn by almost 10x. Unsustainable.
At the top level, it seems to be totally sustainable. Michigan is harder to get into than it was when I attended in the 1970s–80s, which was in turn harder to get into than when my parents went there in the 1950s. I am just citing Michigan because I am the most familiar with it—it is hardly the only one. UCLA has almost an Ivy League level rejection rate. My niece couldn’t get in there, although she was accepted at Berkeley and Columbia.
LikeLike
Both income inequality and increased financial aid has sustained colleges at the top level (state flagship or above). The directional public and especially the poorer LACs and privates that have only a regional reputation will struggle more and more, however. A lot of them are actually using sports to sustain themselves (they have DivIII teams and a decent number of kids don’t want their sports career to end at HS so their parents are willing to pay up so that they can continue playing sports).
LikeLike
For better or worse, I believe that you’re right.
The data is showing that there is a super-strong “flight to quality” in college education where it’s a bifurcated system of either (1) a relatively small handful of schools at the top (the top private schools along with the brand name public flagships or flagship-equivalents) that is getting inundated with applications and, as a result, can effectively charge any price that they want (2) the larger majority of schools that sweat every single admissions cycle and seem to be on the brink of financial ruin.
So, Michigan not only can charge more out-of-state tuition than ever, but it has way exponentially more people *fighting* just for the “privilege” to pay that out-of-tuition than ever before. We can say the same about any Ivy/Ivy-level school or places like Notre Dame, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, etc. If we’re using a classic supply-and-demand chart as applied to these top schools, the price point should actually be WAY higher than the current $80,000 per year cost of attendance because it’s honestly not scaring off anyone (or at least the number of people wanting to get in at any cost is larger than the number of people that might be scared off by that number).
LikeLike
We already have virtual campuses (U Phoenix, etc., online degree programs, …) to some extent.
https://www.mlive.com/education/2013/03/report_shows_michigan_high_for.html
Tuition has greatly outpaced earnings, but the rate depends on your starting point. College used to be cheap in part because state funding kept the cost down. As states fund a smaller percentage, the money had to come from somewhere. Students also demand a lot of things now that schools didn’t used to provide (support staff, fancier facilities, etc.), and they get a better education than they used to.
The other problem is that wages haven’t grown for a long time in the US after inflation. In 2019 dollars, the average hourly pay for production workers in 1964 was $20 and by May 2019 it was all the way up to $23.38, a record high.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3468035/2022/08/02/college-football-realignment/?source=emp_shared_article
Some intriguing details on the secrecy of realignment deals:
Kevin Anderson of MD was very close to Swofford and worked on the additions of Pitt and Syracuse as he planned MD’s exit from the league.
Loftin of A&M talking directly with Slive and keeping his AD in the dark at times.
Also, interesting MD-Texas A&M connecting through AAU with Loh of MD and Loftin sitting next to each other at an alphabetically organized AAU event and Loh asking Loftin about how he changed conferences.
Biggest detail imo: Delany went to Maryland back in 2010 when the Big Ten first started discussing expansion to 12 and possibly beyond.
So Big Ten may have gone to 14 from 11 if Maryland had been willing to join Nebraska at that time.
LikeLike
So Big Ten may have gone to 14 from 11 if Maryland had been willing to join Nebraska at that time.
Or perhaps Maryland would have been the 12th member, and Nebraska/Rutgers never would have joined at all.
LikeLike
I feel like football brand wise, Nebraska’s was still so strong back in 2010 that it’s hard to imagine Nebraska not getting the call.
And we know Delaney basically offered UVA (and UNC) via the Terps source that broke the UMD news.
Hard to imagine 14-16 wasn’t already on Delaney’s mind back then given BTN needing markets and wanting extra content for T1.
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/title-ix-michigan-state-college-sports-supreme-court-explainer/
As if college sports didn’t have enough going on, how Title IX is applied might be taken up by the Supreme Court. Most likely they won’t take the case, and if they do they will make a narrow decision about what metric can/should be used to determine compliance. But they could do something much bigger.
MSU just looks bad fighting this over a team that costs half of what they pay their football coach.
LikeLike
First, I would be surprised if the S.Ct. takes this case. If they do, the only reason will be to make major changes in the manner of application for Title IX. Even changing the method of determination of Title IX funding would be major.
Is Michigan State hoping to get those major changes? That seems to be the situation.
I personally do not think that it is reasonable to determine that athletic opportunities (scholarships) can actually be based in the percentages of male and female students. Less and less men are going to college, so the percentage of women is increasing. Does that mean scholarships ratios will need to be changed?
In addition, though I am old and perhaps not the proper judge of this, isn’t there still a much higher percentage of men who seek to play inter-collegiate sports, particularly at the highest levels of competition? I am not saying to not “fully fund” women’s sports, but seeing college after college eliminate men’s sports so that they are not in violation of Title IX never made sense to me. It seems that in many cases, there were no new opportunities created for women, just an elimination of slots for men.
I am also waiting for some Federal Judge somewhere to find something about NILs that violates Title IX. I think that if could be found that the boosters (or whomever) that pay every single player on a football roster some amount of money, but do not pay any female players, have created a violation of Title IX at the school.
Do I agree with this? With the way that Title IX is construed I am not sure.
LikeLike
This is an interesting case to be sure. I appreciate your thoughts.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, as a general matter, nothing that the Supreme Court does or does not do surprises me at this point.
Personally, I have no issue with the application of Title IX to college sports. The elimination of non-revenue men’s sports in order to comply with Title IX happens almost entirely at schools that sponsor football. The whole point of Title IX is to address the imbalance of funding of men’s opportunities versus women’s opportunities in education. Title IX has direct application to athletics because it’s one of the few (if not only) material areas in academia (or really any profession) where there are *explicit* quotas for male or female athletes depending upon the team. They aren’t overall institutional goals (e.g. a school wants to raise its female enrollment in the engineering school by 10%), but rather straight-forward unambiguous spots *reserved* for males or females, as applicable.
Schools with FBS football teams can’t get around the fact that it’s the most highly-funded sport (by FAR) with 85 scholarships that go entirely to men. There’s simply no equivalent sport on the women’s side that has the size and scale of a football team, so of course it takes a whole lot more women’s sports to simply balance out the number of football scholarships without even taking into account other men’s sports. To me, it’s the cost of doing business if a school wants a football team in order to address the greater societal goal of providing women with equivalent opportunities.
By the same token, if NIL payments are structured properly (meaning not directly or coordinated by the school itself), then Title IX shouldn’t apply. Third parties that do not receive federal assistance for an educational activity aren’t subject to Title IX. Thus, there wouldn’t be a claim against third party companies paying endorsements to football players but not other athletes any more than there wouldn’t ever be a claim against Nike or Gatorade for paying more in endorsements to NBA players compared to WNBA players. Title VII regarding employment discrimination on the basis of sex or other protected classes would apply to third party endorsers and might be a possible claim (although, once again, we haven’t seen that in comparable pro sports endorsement disparities), but that’s a much different standard with significantly different intent compared to Title IX.
Now, *direct* payments from schools to athletes could certainly be subject to Title IX, so that becomes much trickier if/when schools pay-to-play and/or having revenue sharing arrangements. That’s why I think schools should have embraced NIL (or the similar Olympic model) many years ago because NIL addresses the biggest revenue-to-compensation disparity in college sports where certain star players (mostly in football and basketball) would be worth far more than their college scholarships in the free market and NIL fills in that gap in a way where third parties that aren’t subject to Title IX, as opposed to colleges themselves, aren’t making the payments. The colleges stuck their collective heads in the sand for too long on athlete compensation, so the proverbial cat’s out of the bag. NIL is honestly a whole lot simpler to deal with than direct pay-to-play. The very thing that a lot of fans seem to not like about NIL (which is that it essentially can’t be controlled) is actually what makes it more effective in providing something closer to free market compensation to the most valuable athletes.
LikeLike
https://usafootball.com/womens-tackle-team/
Schools need to accept the obvious solution – women’s football. There are semipro leagues for it, and there is a US national team that plays for the world championship. The WFA is shown on ESPN2. It has multiple divisions (like English soccer) – pro, D2, D3, and developmental. There’s also the WNFC and several other leagues.
The can also add a lot of scholarships cheaply by adding women’s wrestling. It’s a growing sport, and some states have full high school championships in it. It would work in the midwest.
LikeLike
Frank you said, “By the same token, if NIL payments are structured properly (meaning not directly or coordinated by the school itself), then Title IX shouldn’t apply. Third parties that do not receive federal assistance for an educational activity aren’t subject to Title IX.”
I await and expect that one Federal Judge somewhere will disagree.
Here is a quicky argument. Joe X is a football recruit at Old State U and every scholarship player at Old State U will get a minimum of $10,000 per season from some NIL source, so long as he remains on the football roster of Old State. No female athletes get any such guarantee. Perhaps one female soccer player is also getting $10,000, but that is it.
Such minimal annual payments are already in place for football.
It only requires one of the 673 US District Court Judges to conclude that absent the scholarship from Old State, Joe X would not be on the roster and therefore would not get the $10,000 per season. Though Old State is not paying Joe directly, it has created the circumstances pursuant to which Joe gets paid and this implicates Title IX. Absent the action of Old State, the scholarship, there would be no annual payment. The lack of any equivalency for female athletes is therefore in violation of the law.
Remember all it takes is one judge to accept one creative argument (probably far more creative than my off the top of the head scenario) to cause absolute chaos. I am not saying that the judge would issue a national injunction or anything of that type, but there would still be total panic in the entire NIL field.
If someone were motivated, how hard would it be to keep knocking the doors of judge’s chambers before someone thought such an argument made sense? The judge may be doing it to help female athletes. Who knows? Do it in a judicial district where there is a pretty good chance to get the case assigned to a sympathetic judge and there you have it.
By the way, there is no analogy between this and the NBA and WNBA.
LikeLike
I don’t claim to be an expert on Title IX, but the statute is pretty clear that it applies to parties that receive federal funds for a particular educational purpose. I’m sure that there are plenty of plaintiff lawyers out there that would love to find some way to tie Title IX to third parties, but that’s superficially pretty difficult.
At the same time, a school’s logical defense is that the Supreme Court itself explicitly just told them in the Alston case that they *couldn’t* control these NIL payments or else it would violate antitrust laws. As a result, it’s a form of double jeopardy to say that they’d be violating antitrust law on the one hand if they tried to manage third party NIL compensation (which is what they would have to do in order to make them equal among male and female athletes), but then be in violation of Title IX for failing to manage such third party NIL compensation so that it would be equal among male and female athletes.
While we can’t ever discount a federal judge making a ruling somewhere somehow that reflects your concern, ultimately, the only way that the plaintiffs could prevail upon an inevitable appeal is for the Supreme Court to completely walk back its unanimous Alston decision and tell schools that they actually have a *duty* to control NIL compensation to make it equal for Title IX purposes even though the Alston ruling explicitly and very forcefully said the opposite on every single level. While this Supreme Court seems to be willing to throw prior precedents from the Court out the window with little basis, I can’t reasonably foresee them throwing out their *own* unanimous precedent that they just recently handed down.
LikeLike
Its not that hard to tie. The schools are coordinating it and doing portals to help the athletes.
A judge just decides its a sham.
LikeLike
Exactly right. These are all the pertinent and difficult questions.
LikeLike
I think we know where Kavanaugh stands. His concurrence in the Alston case was scathing.
LikeLike
Bernie,
My understanding is that MSU feels that met the rule by % which should be enough, and the district court agreed. The appeals court said they need to meet it by # instead.
As a layman, you’d think the law should specify how it is measured so a school would know if it is in violation or not. If either test is okay, fine. If only one is, fine. But you need to spell it out so that schools can know when they’re in compliance.
It must be pretty close for % to work but total # not.
You bring up an important point for schools, that the ratio of male students is dropping. People have spent so long trying to support female students that plenty in academia are arguing that men are doing just fine as they drop to 40% of the student body. The economy is going to suffer for that swing in the future.
Despite the perception, the number of opportunities for women has grown a huge amount since Title IX. It went from about 30,000 to 150,000 athletes in the NCAA. There are academic articles that argue Title IX isn’t really the cause of I-A and I-AA schools dropping men’s sports, but rather it’s the the expenses of football rising so fast. Up until 1996, D-I, D-II, and D-II had all added men’s sports overall. Only I-AA and I-A had a net loss of teams. Now, some of that can be replacing one men’s team with a cheaper and smaller men’s team but keeping the number the same.
If the NCAA sets some rules that keep the schools completely out of NIL, I think it’s safe from Title IX. Title IX says the schools need to offer equal opportunities, not that private companies need to do so in their marketing.
What could be tricky is if players become employees. Is the pay based on the profit earned by that team? Do hourly rates need to match? Most schools have no profitable women’s teams, some have 1 or more. Do they get paid at the same rate as football?
LikeLike
As Brian inferred, the wording of Title IX is vague enough for multiple interpretations . . . .
Title IX states: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
LikeLike
Congress has a habit of passing laws open to multiple meanings, that agencies and courts later have to interpret.
LikeLike
I’ve posted about this multiple times. IMO, there are only two ways to comply with Title IX — either (1) male and female student-athletes from every sport at a school get an equitable share of that school’s revenue pie, which runs counter to the notion of financially rewarding the highest revenue-generators; or (2) completely divorce football and probably men’s basketball players from being students, which strikes me as a very risky proposition for continued fan interest. The only “middle ground” I’ve come up with is a hybrid in which the status quo would continue for most student-athletes, but schools would have the option of designating players as basically “ringers,” who were professional non-students able to earn unlimited compensation.
LikeLike
It would be kind of funny if Title IX essentially creates a legit competitor to the NFL. I can actually see the top 40 or so schools, *if* they divorce from the NCAA in football as most are speculating, and *if* courts interpret Title IX as a need for equal outcomes not just equal opportunity, and *if* the crack in player payment started by the NIL ends up in athletes being “employees” *then* splitting football (and maybe even basketball) into separate corporate entities that are wholly or majority owned by the universities, who license their name to the team for use may be the move for the super conference teams. At that point, who cares about eligibility any more. Player has an SAT score of 200? Who cares, sign ’em. Wants to keep playing for the team after 4 years? Who cares, let ’em. Redshirt freshmen are a thing of the past.
Now the NFL will have some issues. They’re not automatically guaranteed the best players when they hit 22. In fact, if the University teams are smart they can structure contract with players in such a way that if the NFL want them they have to pay for the rights to them if they’re still under contract (much like how transfers work in the soccer world) further giving them a revenue stream. Get “drafted” by a shitty team (like the Commanders) and know your salary is capped for the next few years, but you can still make good $$$ with your “University” team? Tell the NFL team to go pound sand and keep playing with your current team and wait until the next draft.
Seriously doubt this is the future of college football (a lot of *ifs* for this to happen), but it sure would be a lot of fun.
LikeLike
They chose to eliminate men’s and women’s swimming because they didn’t think they could be competitive with their facilities. To have a court say they have to add back women’s swimming seems like a really good reason to challenge. Don’t think they look bad at all. They don’t want a subpar program.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bullet,
It looks bad, because just after that they paid their CFB coach $10M and decided to spend millions on a new football support building, then approved $4M for updating the stadium. But they can’t afford the $4-7M per year for a swimming program. Crying poverty and then spending that way is what looks bad.
They could’ve just said we’re adding this other women’s sport (find a really cheap one, like women’s wrestling) instead.
LikeLike
I think wrestling has worse injury and concussion problems than football. Title IX is only part of the reason men’s programs are disappearing. I don’t see women’s programs getting widespread.
LikeLike
Soccer has the biggest concussion problem after football, especially now that they’ve proven causality between repeated blows to the head (like heading the ball) and CTE. Wrestling has lots of other injuries, but concussions aren’t super common.
LikeLike
https://csnbbs.com/thread-952117-post-18354418.html#pid18354418
From Matt Brown (I added the bold):
RE: What is the PAC’s expansion (or reloading) timetable?
Likely several months…the Big Ten needs to announce their TV deal (which I’m told is “functionally” done), and the Pac-12 will need to exit their exclusive negotiating window and hit the full open market. Data from their formal conversations with Apple, NBC, CBS, etc will shape whether they go hard after San Diego State or others.
LikeLike
https://csnbbs.com/thread-952112-post-18354416.html#pid18354416
Matt Brown also said this in another thread (bold is mine):
RE: Why isn’t the B1G interested in the Phoenix market?
There are dynamics at play here besides “market size”. Different markets care about college sports differently, and different markets have different levels of Big Ten fandom. My educated guess is that neither Arizona school, but especially not Arizona, has the ability to really MOVE a TV market that a) isn’t a hardcore college sports market and b) is already full of Big Ten fans, thanks to midwestern immigration to Phoenix. In fact, I’m pretty sure BTN is already part of one of the basic cable packages for Cox, which if I remember correctly, is the largest basic cable provider in Phoenix.
FWIW, Stanford’s ability to “deliver” the Bay Area market, I’m told, is wildly overstated, as is the college sports importance of that particular market. Houston and Atlanta, for example, are more valuable markets for college football rights providers than the Bay Area, despite the Bay Area having more actual TV sets, because there are more *college football fans* in Houston and ATL.
Two key things:
1. BTN is already on basic cable in Phoenix due to all our alumni out there? Even at the out of footprint rate, they may greatly reduce the value of expanding there. It’s also tough since ASU controls Phoenix much more than UA (over 100 miles away), but UA is the AAU school.
2. The Bay Area market issues. Stanford + Cal might not be enough to make it more valuable than UW + UO.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-media-rights-deal-reportedly-expected-to-be-5-6-years.html
The P12’s next TV deal is expected to be 5-6 years long. This makes sense with the TV industry changing so quickly. It also allows them to sign a second new deal before the ACC’s current deal ends, perhaps with that second deal ending about the same time.
LikeLike
Also allows them to target Big 12 in 2024.
Tactically, it’s hard for the Pac-12 to target Big 12 schools to switch before 2027.
The exit fee, i.e. payouts for the “final” two seasons of the Big 12 current deal are around $80 million, which lasts until 2025.
Pac-12 wouldn’t be able to make those teams whole and may have to dip into its own revenue to support.
But if the Big 12 gets lowballed for say $20 million a team when they’re negotiating in 2024, then the Pac-12 can try to grab Texas Tech/Houston/OK State/Kansas (or whoever) to join the Pac-12 in 2027.
That would be a situation where the Pac-12 can likely get their media deals enlarged at least enough to cover those teams for the final couple of years before negotiating.
And it’s a lot easier to help them pay off a much lower exit fee unlike the current contract.
Of course this strategy presumes the Big 12 would get worse offers than whatever the Pac-12 signs.
LikeLike
The Big 12 exit fee is perpetual (99 years anyway). You are confusing the exit fee with the GOR which expires in 2025.
LikeLike
Do we know whether the ACC exit fee extends past the ACC’s GoR?
Isn’t it equal to three years of TV revenue?
LikeLike
I have always understood that an exit fee is a conference rule that remains in place indefinitely until altered. In contrast, a GoR is a contract that always has an expiration date.
LikeLike
Yes, ACC’s exit fee is 3 years of revenue.
That shouldn’t change due to GoR expiration, question is what it would look like as their next deal gets signed.
Of course that point is moot since one would assume Big Ten and SEC targets would leave in 2036 and pay the prior 3 years worth.
Just takes a majority vote to change that.
LikeLike
So roughly $120m in exit fees to quit the ACC at the end of the GoR? The SEC or the B1G may have pay those fees to get an ACC school out after 12 years of getting lapped in revenue.
LikeLike
Alan,
Or front them the money as a loan payable out of future payouts.
LikeLike
Yeah what Brian said.
Given SEC/Big Ten will be pushing $2-2.5 billion in annual conference revenue by mid-2030s, it will be very easy for the conferences to just borrow against future distributions and give that money to the schools at issue against their future revenue shares.
It won’t be a big deal by the mid 2030s to cover a $120-140 million exit fee over 3 years for any school or two (or more).
LikeLike
After those schools have fallen so far behind, will they be worth it? Maybe not.
One of the reasons the B1G should wrap up the west coast now.
LikeLike
Alan,
Totally agree with you. If your goal is to go westward, do it now while you have the opportunity. IMO after the new deals are signed with or without ND, I think BIG takes 2 more PAC schools.
LikeLike
Alan,
It depends on the school and what made them valuable in the first place. If Clemson football falls behind, they have no other value really. If Stanford football falls behind, they still have academics and their market and their rivalry with USC and their proximity to LA and all the B10 alumni in SF and ….
And I think people overrate the value of the extra money. Look how competitive the top of the AAC and MWC have been with the P5. They’ve done that with a lot less money than future M3 programs would have.
LikeLike
Doug,
If the B10 was going to add them anyway, why wait until after signing the new deal? That only makes sense if you are waiting on ND or if you want to add them in a few years but not now.
LikeLike
Correct, but if the B12’s next deal is lower, then the exit fee also drops some. I still think it’s a barrier to the P12 ever raiding the B12, but it would be a smaller one.
I’m curious if the P12 will put an exit fee into their bylaws going forward. It would be an easy way to raise some money for those left behind if the B10 comes calling.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s what I’m wondering.
If the Big 12 signs a media deal that distributes $30 million a year, the exit fee would drop to $60 million.
Might still be prohibitive either way for the Pac-12.
LikeLike
I would think there are 7 schools who would vote against any stiff exit fee.
LikeLike
The P12 required a 75% vote to get rid of unequal revenue sharing and I think the same will be true for any exit fee changes. There may not be 7 votes against but there should be 3+. A 4–6-year P12 deal makes the top teams available to the B1G after the new football playoff deal is struck. Probably also wise with the rapid changes in media rights. Much better reasons than ability to raid (or be raided) by the B12.
LikeLike
I would think there are 7 schools who would vote against any stiff exit fee.
I do too, but I am amazed at how many schools in other leagues have voted for exit fees that they “hoped” to pay one day.
LikeLike
Agreeing to it may be a show of faith the others require as part of signing the next deal. Or maybe they want one from the 4 corners schools so they don’t ever leave. It wouldn’t have to be huge, just enough to be protection against the B12 and ACC. The would all know that if the get a golden ticket to the B10 or SEC, they could easily afford it. But otherwise it gives everyone some stability.
LikeLike
The general consensus seems to be we will need to wait some weeks (or months) for the TV contracts (B1G, PAC, Notre Dame) to shake out. While we wait I was curious what folks thought about B1G football scheduling. What model will they adopt the next 2 years, and how will the model look after the USC/UCLA additions? If B1G does expand beyond 16 (to say 18 or 20), what scheduling models make the most sense? Will we see the value of additional conference games surpass the value of 2 buy games and a “P5” home-and-home OOC game?
LikeLike
Seems like it’s gotta be 3-6-6. Three annual rivals plus six other conf opponents for home-and-aways for two years, then the other six for home-and-aways the next two years. In four years, every player gets to visit every Big Ten stadium.
LikeLike
I agree with Colin that 3-6-6 is the most likely 16-team format. It requires ridiculous synthetic rivalries in the name of mathematical symmetry. Still, the simplicity of that model will probably be irresistible. I have no idea how they would schedule for 18+ teams.
I do not see them going to 10 conference games, as I think the schools want to retain some flexibility to schedule compelling non-conference opponents. If they go to 10, the P5 non-conference game would be the casualty, as everyone wants 7 home games.
LikeLike
18 is still 3-6. You get the other 14 teams 6 times in 14 years, pretty similar to what the Big 10 is doing now for teams in the opposite division.
LikeLike
bullet: “18 is still 3-6. You get the other 14 teams 6 times in 14 years, pretty similar to what the Big 10 is doing now for teams in the opposite division.”
That is an astute analysis and probably the best option for an 18-school conference. Other than annual rivals, conference teams would play at a 43% frequency rather than the 50% frequency of 3-6-6 in a 16-school conference. Pretty close to same-same.
LikeLike
bullet,
For 18, 3-6 does work, but there are some options.
9 = 3*100% + 4*50% + 10*40%
That let’s you have a middle tier at 50% and the rest at 40% (twice in 5 years).
9 = 3*100% + 3*67% + 11*36%
That let’s you have a second tier at 67% and the rest at 36%.
9 = 3*100% + 5*60% + 9*33%
That let’s you have a second tier at 60% (for minor rivalries or geographic neighbors) and the rest at 33%.
9 = 3*100% + 4*75% + 10*30%
That let’s you have a second tier at 75% and the rest at 30%.
9 = 5*100% + 12*33%
If you have a lot of games you want to protect.
LikeLike
Bob,
The B10 deal is apparently functionally done, so it should be out in a week or two. If it’s done, then ND’s deal likely will be very soon if it isn’t already. That means the networks can focus on the P12 now, and will likely have things done this month. They may not get announced that quickly, but I’d expect the deals to be basically done by Labor Day. It may take longer to dot i’s and cross t’s.
Scheduling will remain the same for this year. I think they’ll keep divisions for the CCG, too. Change could come in 2023, but I think they’ll wait until 2024 and make all the changes at once. They might stop using the divisions for the CCG before then, but I’m not sure they will.
In 2024 look for no divisions, and probably 3 locked rivals and alternating through the other 12 (3-6-6 model). Where possible, I think they’ll use a zipper format to make the sets of 6 so everyone gets to all the regions regularly. I would expect a temporary set of locked rivals for USC and UCLA that focuses on the big brands, then a reduction in that after a few years.
To me, these games are almost guaranteed to be locked:
RU – UMD, PSU,
UMD – RU,
PSU – RU, OSU
OSU – PSU, MI,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI, IU,
IU – MSU, PU,
PU – IU, IL,
IL – PU, NW,
NW – IL,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
USC – UCLA,
UCLA – USC,
I’d lock the rest of these at first:
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, MSU, PU
PSU – RU, OSU, USC
OSU – PSU, MI, USC
MI – OSU, MSU, UCLA
MSU – MI, IU, UMD
IU – MSU, PU, IL
PU – IU, IL, UMD
IL – PU, NW, IU
NW – IL, WI, RU
WI – MN, IA, NW
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN, UCLA
USC – UCLA, OSU, PSU
UCLA – USC, MI, NE
After a few years of maximizing use of the brands, then you shift to a more even plan. USC and UCLA might even drop to 1 locked rival each and rotate through the rest a little more often. UMD would get back the PSU game. I think WI and NW would enjoy being locked, and NE may need the CA access from playing UCLA, but maybe WI/NE come back instead.
LikeLike
MSU will want to lock NU.
For TV purposes, I’m close to certain that the B10 will lock OSU-USC and UMich-UCLA. Also UNL and either Wisconsin or MSU vs the LA schools.
I think PSU locks both RU and UMD (and OSU, of course).
NU would want to lock one of the Eastern schools (ideally RU for being close to NYC). Few of the other Midwestern schools would. Maybe IU? IU (Kelley) actually sends a decent number of grads out East (and gets a good number of students from there too).
That’s all assuming that ND+Stanford+Cal+UW don’t join.
In a B20, you can have 4 locked rivals (which NU and Iowa would want) and play the other 15 teams every 3 years.
LikeLike
MSU will want to lock NU.
I have no doubt they will. Good luck coming up with a format where everyone gets all the locks they want.
LikeLike
They will, and my list is a little different every time I make it. Usually I keep that locked but I changed it up this time. Normally PSU would get both eastern schools, but I think at first they will be needed out west. I figured UMD could survive that better, and gave them MSU as a decent substitute. After all, all the other games happen 50% of the time.
LikeLike
Brian, I like your locks. As a PSU alum I would MUCH rather have one of the CA schools than lock RU and MD. They are areas to recruit but not rivals (at least not yet). The only one that I’m on the fence about is WI-NW and NE-UCLA. I could see WI-UCLA making sense given the recent on field performances.
LikeLike
Bob,
Thanks. I could see WI/UCLA as well, but I think NE still has a bigger brand. I also think NE needs CA recruiting more than anyone else in the current B10. WI and NW are less than 150 miles apart and the series has been very competitive (11-10 since 1995), plus I’ve seen some fans on both sides suggest they should be locked if divisions go away.
Another option would be MSU/UCLA with WI/NE staying locked.
In the end I put the four blue blood brands out there, figuring they might register with the fans in CA. Besides, UCLA hasn’t been great so they don’t need the stiffest competition necessarily. I’m pretty sure NE would be happy to be playing UCLA annually rather than OSU like they have been.
LikeLike
I suspect PSU would not pound the table for playing both MD and RU every year. The Big Ten will want to show off its shiny new toys in premier games that get featured broadcasting windows.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree. PSU doesn’t necessarily want both of them locked, and they wouldn’t be at first (like you said, the B10 wants to show off USC and UCLA), but that’s the price they pay for wanting eastern partners. Nobody else is geographically close to UMD or RU, and nobody else has nearly the same number of alumni in the area. PSU demanded OSU every year and UM for the first 10 years when they joined, and the B10 agreed. Now they get to pay the B10 back by playing UMD and RU forever.
LikeLike
As Brian pointed out, the problem with the 3-6-6 scheme is that it forces several annual rivalries that are totally contrived, e. g. Maryland-Purdue. In an effort to resolve this, I propose a Variable Designated Annual Rivalry format, acronym VaDAR. Schools may have either one, two or three designated annual rivals. The grouping for each school is unique and of course the groupings can be tweaked.
In addition to each school playing its VaDARs, it will also play enough non-VaDARs to complete a nine-game schedule. The frequency with which they play each non-VaDAR depends upon availability. One-game VaDARs will be available more frequently than three-game VaDARs.
Three-school VaDARs:
Minn – Wisc, Neb, Iowa
Wisc – NW, Minn, Iowa
Iowa – Neb, Minn, Wisc
Illini – NW, Pur, Ind
Two-game VaDARs:
Neb – Minn, Iowa
NW – Illini, Wisc
Pur – Illini, Ind
Ind – Pur, Illini
Mich – Ohio, MSt
PSt – Mary, Rut
Mary – Rut, PSt
Rut – PSt,Mary
One-game VaDARs:
SoCal- UCLA
UCLA – SoCal
Ohio – Mich
MSt – Mich
Note that one-game VaDARs will have a good deal higher availability for the general rotation than three-school VaDARs, and as a result will be playing each other with a higher frequency. Nonetheless, each conference school will play all others with a frequency of at least 50%, as with the 3-6-6 format.
May the Force be with you.
LikeLike
Colin,
Marc’s with you on the variable locked rivals. I agree it’s slightly better in theory, I just don’t think it will be used because 3 for everyone is so much simpler for fans to understand.
There is no way the B10 doesn’t lock PSU/OSU. It’s probably the 2nd most valuable game in the B10 now, plus PSU views it as its biggest rivalry.
I will be shocked if the B10 doesn’t lock big brand teams vs the LA schools for at least the first few years. They want to milk every penny out of this expansion, and that means getting OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, and MSU out there a lot.
They could use rotating locked games. USC/UCLA vs OSU/MI = 2 years of OSU/USC and UCLA/MI locked, then 2 years of OSU/UCLA and USC/MI locked nets 3 games in 4 years for each (vs 4 OSU/USC and MI/UCLA with 2 OSU/UCLA and MI/USC). They could also do that with PSU/NE and/or WI/MSU. You don’t want to make the SOS too difficult for the newbies, especially UCLA, but you want all the brand vs brand games you can get. Everyone else will play half the time anyway.
But simpler would be locking games for up to 10 years (maybe just however long this TV deal is), then relaxing it after USC and UCLA are well integrated (assuming more expansion hasn’t happened).
I think the B10 will basically use zipper scheduling (play USC or UCLA, NE or IA, WI or MN, NW or IL, PU or IN, MI or MSU, OSU or PSU, RU or UMD) around locked rivals for everyone. Lock the partner + 1 from each pair = 7 games scheduled. The lock up to 2 more games – I think they will do 3 for everyone, but they might not. I think they will bias the LA schools to playing the bigger brands (conveniently fit in 4 pairs) at first, reducing the games for the eastern pair (good to reduce travel), the IN pair, and the IL pair (and maybe for MN and IA, too).
LikeLike
Brian: “There is no way the B10 doesn’t lock PSU/OSU. It’s probably the 2nd most valuable game in the B10 now, plus PSU views it as its biggest rivalry.”
That’s the advantage of the VaDAR system. If Ohio St and Penn St want to be locked annual rivals, we’ll just do it. That elevates Penn St from 2-game VaDAR (PSt – Mary, Rut) to a 3-game VaDAR (PSt – Mary, Rut, Ohio). At the same time it elevates Ohio St from a one-game VaDAR (Ohio – Mich) to a 2-game VaDAR (Ohio – Mich, PSt). Everything else stays the same.
On your other issue, locking the top B1G brand teams to the LA schools would be counterproductive. We don’t want artificial, contrived rivalries. Having both USC and UCLA as one-team VaDARs while Ohio St, Penn St and Michigan as two-team VaDARs will automatically increase the frequency with which these schools play each other. Let’s take USC as an example.
USC will have a locked rival – UCLA – but the other eight teams on their schedule will come from the general rotation. But those eight opponents are not equally available. Schools with 3-team VaDARs like Minnesota will only play six schools from the general rotation each year and the Gophers’ availability is play USC is diminished accordingly.
It works the other way, too. Since Mich St is now the only remaining one-team VaDAR in the conference other than the California schools, the Spartans will be playing USC and UCLA more frequently than anyone else.
LikeLike
Colin,
I’m not saying OSU wants it. I’m saying the B10 would impose it regardless because of its value, and because PSU wants it.
“On your other issue, locking the top B1G brand teams to the LA schools would be counterproductive. We don’t want artificial, contrived rivalries.”
No, it’s very productive financially, and for integrating the new members into the conference. You may not want forced rivalries, but TV absolutely does. Millions of casual fans will tune in for OSU vs USC. Besides, that is a rivalry on OSU’s side thanks to the Rose Bowl. OSU is 10-13-1 vs USC (3-4 in Rose Bowl, 1-0 in Cotton Bowl). We’ve played USC more than twice as much as NE, UMD, or RU (USC is out 12th most frequent opponent).
Your system is complicated. Most fans prefer something that is easily explained and understood, even if that makes it imperfect. Some of the locked games aren’t rivalries, but designed to serve a purpose for the B10 or one/both of the schools. Very few are purely arbitrary.
The first thing the B10 has done every time it has expanded in the past 30 years is make sure the big brands play the newbies very frequently. When PSU joined, OSU/PSU got permanently locked plus PSU/MI was locked for 10 years. NE was put in MI’s division (couldn’t be with both) with OSU as one of their crossovers the first 2 years. Both RU and UMD were put in a division with OSU, MI and PSU.
It’s not fair, but playing OSU and MI is often what makes new members feel like part of the B10. It also guarantees them sell outs and OTA games on TV drawing large viewership. It makes their fans happy because those are the B10 brands they know and want to play. It builds excitement and helps ease the transition.
LikeLike
Brian: “No, it’s very productive financially, and for integrating the new members into the conference. You may not want forced rivalries, but TV absolutely does.”
The polar opposite is true. Forced annual rivalries with, for example, USC and Ohio State would increase the frequency with which they played each other from approximately 65% to 100%. But that would decrease the frequency with which Ohio State played UCLA. And it would also decrease the frequency with which Michigan played USC. And UCLA. And Penn State.
LikeLike
At least in a 16-team conference with 3 protected annual rivals and 9 conference games, a school would play everyone else in the league 2 out of every 4 years no matter what. So, in that scenario, a school is playing everyone else either 100% of the time or 50% of the time, so it’s not really a trade-off.
LikeLike
Colin,
“The polar opposite is true.”
No, it isn’t.
“Forced annual rivalries with, for example, USC and Ohio State would increase the frequency with which they played each other from approximately 65% to 100%. But that would decrease the frequency with which Ohio State played UCLA. And it would also decrease the frequency with which Michigan played USC. And UCLA. And Penn State.”
For simplicity, I’m just looking at this from USC and UCLA’s point of view, assuming all teams have the same number of locked rivals so all unlocked teams are played equally.
For USC
* With no locked rivals, USC would play 2.4 kings, 2.4 princes, and 4.2 other B10 games.
* With 1 locked rival (UCLA), USC would play 2.3 kings, 2.7 princes, and 4 other B10 games.
* With 2 locked rivals (UCLA, OSU), USC would play 2.6 kings, 2.6 princes, and 3.8 other B10 games.
* With 3 locked rivals (UCLA, OSU, PSU), USC would play 3 kings, 2.5 princes, and 3.5 other B10 games.
3 rivals:
Kings = (OSU + PSU) + 1/2*(MI + NE) = 3
Princes = UCLA + 1/2*(MSU + WI + IA) = 2.5
Other = 1/2*(7 schools) = 3.5
So yes, they’d play MI and NE slightly less often than if it was totally equal (60%). But locking those kings gets more of the most valuable games on the schedule.
For UCLA
* With no locked rivals, UCLA would play 3 kings, 1.8 princes, and 4.2 other B10 games.
* With 1 locked rival (USC), UCLA would play 3.3 kings, 1.7 princes, and 4 other B10 games.
* With 2 locked rivals (USC, MI), UCLA would play 3.6 kings, 1.6 princes, and 3.8 other B10 games.
* With 3 locked rivals (USC, MI, NE), UCLA would play 4 kings, 1.5 princes, and 3.5 other B10 games.
3 rivals:
Kings = 1/2*(OSU + PSU) + (USC + MI + NE) = 4
Princes = 1/2*(MSU + WI + IA) = 1.5
Other = 1/2*(7 schools) = 3.5
So yes, they’d play OSU and PSU slightly less often than if it was totally equal (60%). But locking those kings gets more of the most valuable games on the schedule.
Locking those 3 rivals each gained the B10 0.6 king/king games and 1.1 king/prince games, while costing them -0.3 prince/prince games from these two.
Also under this scheme, OSU/MI and OSU/PSU are locked so those go up. MI/PSU would go down. NE vs OSU, MI, and PSU would go down. But many of these locked games are locked already or would need to be, so it’s not a big change.
What gets played less frequently are the games of the other 7 (RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL, NW, MN) against USC and UCLA and OSU/MI/PSU/NE. They end up playing each other more, but that has some benefits as well. Those are games they can more easily, helping their records. The big brands playing each other more often means they have to absorb more losses.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/college/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/paul-finebaum-notre-dame-fighting-irish-is-going-to-find-out-theres-only-so-much-they-can-milk-nbc-conference-realignment/
Paul Finebaum on ND.
In an appearance on ‘McElroy and Cubelic In The Morning‘, Finebaum said any one who thinks they know anything outside of the conference commissioners are kidding themselves.
“First of all, I do not believe for a second that nothing is on the horizon because I think one thing we have come to learn over these many months, if not years of this, is that nobody’s telling the truth because you really can’t afford to,” said Finebaum. “These are high stakes poker games being played in the dark of night by stealth operators. That’s why nothing said in any of these meetings is particularly interesting or important. You just have to read between the lines. I think there’s still conversations going on.”
…
“The media thinks it has it right about Notre Dame that they’re set and sitting pretty. Notre Dame, I think, is going to find out that there’s only so far they can milk NBC,” Finebaum said. “What if they get the reported $75 million from NBC? So what? They’re still an independent and they’re still not going to win a national championship as an independent.”
…
When it comes down to it, he says these conversations have done anything but stalled, specifically in South Bend.
“I think ultimately (that) Notre Dame is going to bite the bullet and get into a conference. It’s just going to take time. There’s nobody out there, other than maybe (Notre Dame AD) Jack Swarbrick, who probably knows when that is.”
LikeLike
…any one who thinks they know anything outside of the conference commissioners are kidding themselves.
Truer words were never spoken. Of course, it does not stop him from speculating, as he must, because his job requires it.
LikeLike
They’re still an independent and they’re still not going to win a national championship as an independent.”
An interesting viewpoint. They’ve got 2 playoff appearances, which is more than all but a handful of programs, and more than every Big Ten team except OSU. The problem is that, both times they reached the playoff, they were not competitive.
LikeLike
The CFP has been the worst group of games ever held in the postseason, especially the semifinals. Most games are laughers, and these are supposed to be the 4 best teams. Think how bad the early rounds of an expanded CFP will be.
Margin of victory in CFP games:
Semifinals:
1 possession (up to 8 pts) – 3/16
2 possessions (9-16) – 1/16
3 possessions (17-24) – 7/16
4+ possessions (25+) – 5/16
Average MOV = 21.1
Average score = 38.6 – 17.5
Finals:
1 possession (up to 8 pts) – 3/8
2 possessions (9-16) – 1/8
3 possessions (17-24) – 2/8
4+ possessions (25+) – 2/8
Average MOV = 15.3
Average score = 39.9 – 24.6
BCS title games:
1 possession (up to 8 pts) – 6/16
2 possessions (9-16) – 4/16
3 possessions (17-24) – 3/16
4+ possessions (25+) – 3/16
Average MOV = 14.6
Average score = 32.9 – 18.3
Defense has gotten worse or offense has improved.
LikeLike
It’s somewhat mysterious and might just be statistical noise in a small sample. You would not expect that a tournament of the four best teams would produce so few competitive games. Regular-season games between teams similarly ranked are not so lopsided.
But it is a highly unrepresentative sample. 75% of the semi-final winners have been Clemson or an SEC team. Alabama has been in the final 75% of the time, Clemson 50% of the time. Ohio State is the only Big Ten team that has played a competitive game. Oklahoma is 0–4, but two of those four were close.
Maybe the SEC and Clemson simply were that much better than everybody else. When Michigan played Georgia last year, they were totally out-classed. So was Cincinnati against Alabama. So was Notre Dame in both of their appearances. So was Washington in their one appearance.
Maybe it is something about football. An awful lot of Super Bowls have been bad games, although not to this extent.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think part of it is the extra time to prepare. You give top level coaches and their staff of consultants plus assistants multiple weeks to gameplan for a team, they’re going to find weaknesses they can exploit. The MOV was lower for the title games where the teams had less extra time.
In the BCS era, there were fewer non-coaching consultants than you see now.
LikeLike
The Bengals and Cowboys were my two favorite teams. And they lost the only 5 interesting Super Bowls in the first 24 years. There have been a lot of boring Super Bowls since then as well, but maybe not as high a %.
LikeLike
bullet: “The Bengals and Cowboys were my two favorite teams. And they lost the only 5 interesting Super Bowls in the first 24 years. There have been a lot of boring Super Bowls since then as well, but maybe not as high a %.”
I thought you were exaggerating, but went and look, and wow, you may be right. I’m too young to remember the 70’s Super Bowls, so not sure if SB VII (Miami 14, Wash 7) would count as interesting. Otherwise, those first 24 Super Bowls were full of some stinkers.
What’s also amazing is how large a percentage of the best Super Bowl games involved Brady and Belichick, their Patriots almost always delivered drama (13-3 win over Rams might be the only exception of the nine Brady/Belichick Super Bowls, but even that game is interesting in that their largest Super Bowl winning margin came in the SB where they scored their fewest points).
LikeLike
I like this explanation of why the Pats Rams (2nd) SB was so interesting:
Belichick basically figured out how to stymie what had been up to that point a totally unstoppable offense. He picked it apart so we’ll that every other team that played the Rams the next year essentially adopted the Pats defensive philosophy and McVay had to go back to the drawing board and scheme up new stuff.
Just a masterclass in defensive scheming.
LikeLike
Super Bowl 7 was one of the most boring. Miami was unbeaten and totally dominated the game. The things the game was noted for were 1) Dolphins unbeaten season; and 2) Garo Yepremian, the punter, attempting one of the worst passes in NFL history in a fake punt late in the game. It was intercepted and run back for a TD, making the game seem closer than it was. Its worth a lookup on youtube.
LikeLike
The Giants and Patriots had a couple of interesting Super Bowls.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34272528/the-11-biggest-power-brokers-advocates-shaping-future-college-football
The 11 biggest power brokers and advocates shaping the future of college football, with brief interviews of each. The picked 1 for each of 10 major areas (2 for one of them).
Realignment | Governance | NIL
Player unionization | Coaching | Recruiting | Analytics
Diversity | Mental health | Culture change
LikeLike
https://www.coogfans.com/t/espn-initial-offer-24-5-million/37693/20
I finally found the rumored numbers from @MHver3 for the P12 unequal revenue sharing.
UW and UO would get 16.5% each (33%)
Cal and Stanford would 13.5% each (27%)
The other 6 would get 6.67% each (40%)
Value to conference:
P12 = $500M
P10 = $300M (USC + UCLA = $200M = 40% of total)
UW + UO = $100M ($50M each)
Cal + SU = $80M ($40M each)
4C + OrSU + WSU = $120M ($20M each)
But the rumored P12 offer was $245M, not $300M, so they’d all get 81.67% of that instead.
Rumored payouts:
UW + UO = $40.8M each
Cal + SU = $32.7M each
4C + OrSU + WSU = $16.3M each
Even if the P12 got the full $300M, this plan makes little sense. The B12 could easily make enough more to draw the 4C schools away pretty easily.
If they wanted this sort of plan, you have to work from the bottom up:
4C + OrSU + WSU = $25M each = $150M
Cal + SU = $35M each = $70M
UW + UO = $40M each = $80M
That’s the most extreme I would consider, and preferably it should be more equal.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m still skeptical on Pac-12 having substantially unequal revenue distributions. The difference may be a few million at the margins based on performance (especially in the postseason).
The 4 corners schools have an outside option in the Big 12 which gives them some negotiation leverage. They can push back against a vastly unequal scheme.
Most of these leaks have come from that Arizona beat writer and 365 radio (Baylor radio). The Arizona beat writer is pushing strongly for Arizona to the Big 12 and so there’s an incentive to paint the Pac-12 in the worst possible light for Arizona (i.e. UW/UO/Cal/Stanford will try to keep all the money and the contract will be crap).
I struggle to see a scenario where UW/UO/Cal/Stanford are guaranteed $10-15 million more per year.
Maybe they can earn up to $5-10 million more than the lowest performing team but they won’t be guaranteed anything.
And for example, in a year where UW or UO is medicore and Utah is a double digit wins team, Utah might earn near the most while UW/UO are in the middle.
And if Cal is dreadful for a decade, they might be near the bottom for a while.
But that’s the tradeoff for unequal revenue.
Nebraska had some lean years in the Big 12 where it was in the 5-8 range for distributions towards the end of their say. Be careful what you wish for is what I’d say.
Oregon can easily backslide as can any of the remaining Pac-12 teams, even the ones that may eventually reach the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Agreed, I’d do an equal base payout but split some of the postseason money unequally.
LikeLike
Even if the P12 got the full $300M, this plan makes little sense.
I find it very unlikely that barely a month into negotiating a new TV deal they’ve already decided how to distribute the revenue. That seems like putting the cart before the horse when you’ve received at most two bids. If you are going to do that, might as well leak the plan to a WV blogger to rile up the message board set.. IMHO – this is a complete fabrication.
LikeLike
Someone uploaded the 20-21 ACC manual with the ACC bylaws if anyone is interested.
Click to access 2020-21-ACC-Manual-2020-9-17-2.pdf
LikeLike
NCAA tournament money split is almost equal:
2.5.7 Distribution of Revenue from the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship.
All receipts from the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship (six-year performance history) will be divided equally among the Members after payments to the participating teams as outlined below.
A team participating in the First Four of the Men’s Basketball Championship will receive $40,000. A team participating in the first/second rounds will receive an additional $40,000. Any team advancing beyond the second round and playing east of the Mississippi River will receive an additional $45,000. Any team advancing beyond the second round and playing west of the Mississippi River will receive an additional $55,000. If a team advances to the Final Four, it will receive an additional $85,000 if playing east of the Mississippi River and an additional $95,000 if playing west of the Mississippi River. The amounts described in this Section 2.5.7 and in Section 2.5.8 may be adjusted by the Board from time to time by resolution of a majority of the Board without being deemed an amendment to these Bylaws.
Since 1 share is worth almost $300,000 (for 6 years), that’s a very small performance incentive.
Bowl and CFP money is split equally after expenses. ND keeps all its own bowl money from the CFP or Orange Bowl, but is treated like an ACC member for the other bowls.
80/20 revenue split is there:
The University of Notre Dame shall not participate in any allocation or distribution of Conference revenues attributable to football media or broadcast rights. For purposes of this provision, eighty percent (80%) of total media and broadcast right revenues of the Conference in any particular fiscal year, after determination of amounts reserved or used for Conference office expenses, shall be deemed to be attributable to football, and the remaining twenty percent (20%) of such revenues shall be deemed to be attributable to other sports.
And then the big stuff:
1.4.4 Expulsion/Suspension/Probation of Members.
A Member may be expelled, suspended, or placed on probation by the Conference only upon the favorable vote of three-fourths of the Directors (excluding the Director appointed by the Member under consideration). To expel means a complete severance from the Conference in all sports. To suspend means a temporary severance under stated conditions from the Conference in one or more sports.
Among the reasons a Member may be expelled, suspended, or placed on probation for good cause is if it no longer participates in one or more sports which are required for membership in the Conference, if the Member is required by the NCAA to discontinue such required sport because of violations of NCAA regulations, or such Member or one or more of its sports programs becomes incompatible with the objectives of the Conference.
The effective date of any expulsion shall be June 30. In the event of expulsion, the Conference must provide the Member with the specific reasons for expulsion and a notice of expulsion on or before August 15 of the year preceding the June 30 expulsion date. The expelled Member will receive a proportionate share of the distribution made to Members with respect to the fiscal year ending on the June 30 expulsion date, unless its share has previously been reduced due to a suspension or probation, in which case it shall receive such reduced share.
In the event of suspension or probation, the Conference may enforce penalties immediately.
In any sport in which a Member is ineligible for postseason play because of violations of NCAA or
Conference regulations, the Member may be suspended in that sport. If suspended, the Member shall not be eligible for the Conference championship in that sport and may be required to forfeit its share of any or all Conference revenues generated by that sport.
1.4.5 Withdrawal of Members.
To withdraw from the Conference, a Member must file an official notice of withdrawal with each of the Members and the Commissioner on or before August 15 for the withdrawal to be effective June 30 of the following year.
Upon official notice of withdrawal, the Member will be subject to a withdrawal payment, as liquidated damages, in an amount equal to three times the total operating budget of the Conference (including any contingency included therein), approved in accordance with Section 2.5.1 of the Bylaws of the Conference (the “Bylaws”), which is in effect as of the date of the official notice of withdrawal. The Conference may offset the amount of such payment against any distributions otherwise due such Member for any Conference year. Any remaining amount due shall be paid by the withdrawing Member within 30 days after the effective date of withdrawal. The withdrawing Member shall have no claim on the assets, accounts, or income of the Conference.
…
The Absolute Three-Fourths Matters are as follows: (i) the admission of new Members to the Conference pursuant to Section 1.4.3, (ii) the expulsion, suspension or probation of a Member pursuant to Section 1.4.4, (iii) any amendment of this Constitution, (iv) any amendment of the Bylaws (except amendments to Article 2.5), and (v) waiver of notice or other required process for a Board meeting pursuant to Section 1.5.1.5.2.
…
2.11.3.4 Dissolution Clause. Upon the dissolution of the Conference, the Board shall dispose of
all the assets of the organization exclusively for the purpose of the organization in such manner, or to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or scientific purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law), as the Board shall determine. Any of such assets not so disposed of shall be disposed of by the state court of jurisdiction in which the principal office of the organization is then located, exclusively for such purposes or to such organization or organizations as said court shall determine which are organized and operated exclusively for such purposes.
LikeLike
@Mike – Awesome! I’ll take a look at this.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34263468/bowl-games-start-season-reimagining-college-football-calendar
Rethinking the CFB calendar. They have feedback from people on each of their ideas.
Our team of ESPN reporters — Bill Connelly, Heather Dinich, David M. Hale, Adam Rittenberg and Tom VanHaaren — spent the offseason putting together proposals to fix the year-round schedule. We then polled people throughout the sport — decision-makers and those who would be directly impacted — on the pros and cons of such theoretical changes.
“Everything that you have on here, there’s not one thing that I looked at here that says, ‘That’s crazy,'” Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren said. “These are the issues [we need to address].”
…
July 21 through mid-August: Fall camps
Third Saturday in August through Labor Day: Bowl season
…
And don’t worry, the most tradition-rich bowls — the current New Year’s Six — still get played at season’s end as part of our newly designed playoff.
I don’t see the point in pre-season bowls. There’s nothing to celebrate, and many of the bowl cities are miserably hot then. These are just OOC games.
The point of bowls for the hosts is to draw tourists (maybe over Labor Day weekend, but school is just starting back up) to warm, sunny locations during a cold time around the holidays. How many people want to go to Phoenix around then? Dallas? Atlanta? How many midwesterners will feel the need to fly 1500+ miles for a football game when it’s 85 degrees out at home?
For coaches, it’s to reward players for a good season and all their hard work.
September through mid-November: Weeks 2-11 with a second open date
Sep. 1 through Nov. 27: Active dates (for recruiting)
Week 12: Bracket Buster weekend for the non-Power 5
Week 13: Rivalry week
Week 14: Championship weekend, but everyone plays
Week 15: Army-Navy game
… First, there will be no more matchups against FCS opponents. Second, we’re adding an extra off week for every team, giving players more time to rest, recover and relax.
…
(Don’t worry, we’re offering a financial carrot to the FCS programs in the spring.) Putting a full slate of games on championship weekend also allows for an extra off week during the season, easing some of the physical burden on players that has served as a stumbling block in playoff expansion talks.
…
Group of 5 athletic director: “I like the [Bracket Buster] idea. … The challenge of it is logistics. Travel is hard. When you get selected for a bowl game and you play 13 days later, it is hair on fire to get the organization done to travel that quickly. When you’re moving 160 people, the equipment that’s necessary and everything else, and you’re talking about how quickly can you turn it around, it’s going to be hard. And you also enter the time of finals. A lot of institutions will push back. It’s one thing if you’re playing in a championship game or a bowl game, but a lot of institutions will push back against playing in December.”
No I-AA games is good, but I’m not sure how you get everyone to play on the final week. The race for the CCG could be impacted by the results of those games (even OOC – a conference could use CFP rankings to pick the top 2, or as a tiebreaker).
Monday after conclusion of regular season: Coaching interviews can begin
Monday after conclusion of regular season through Dec. 31: Winter transfer window
Third weekend in December: 12-team playoff opening round
Jan. 10 through Jan. 31: Winter OTAs
New Year’s weekend: Playoff quarterfinals
First Monday in January through March 1: High school recruit signing period
Second/third Thursday in January: Playoff semifinals
Fourth Monday in January: National championship game
Last weekend in January: Awards shows and Heisman ceremony
…
The conference commissioners may not be able to agree on an expanded playoff, but we did. We’re following the 12-team model proposed during the summer of 2021, with six conference champions guaranteed a bid, along with six wildcards determined by the College Football Playoff committee.
The opening round of the playoff — featuring the 5 seed vs. the 12 seed, 6 vs. 11, 7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9 — will be played the third week in December on the campus of the higher seed. The quarterfinal and semifinal games will be hosted by the New Year’s Six bowls — Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, Peach, Sugar and Rose bowls — rotating annually. The national championship game will need to move back a couple weeks to be clear of any NFL playoff conflicts, and will be played at a rotating regional host site.
2 semifinals on one Thursday night? How does that work from a TV perspective?
Three days after the national championship game: Deadline to enter NFL draft
Seven days following the national championship game: Transfer window for playoff participants
February: Inactive dates for recruiting (No in-person contact)
March 1-April 15: Active dates for recruiting (In-person contact, mainly off campus for evaluation purposes)
March and April: Spring practice with spring games vs. FCS opponents
April 1: Deadline for players to opt out of NFL draft
Third/Fourth week in April: Schedule releases and bowl matchups determined
April 16 through May 15: Inactive dates for recruiting
April 15-May 15: Spring transfer window
May 22: Spring transfer signing date
May 16-June 30: Active dates for recruiting (Primarily visits to college campuses)
Last week of May through second week in June: Window for summer OTAs
July 1-July 20: No team activities (summer break for coaches, players, staff)
…
Spring practice typically resonates with fans for one reason: They’ve missed football. Beyond that, it’s a whole lot of nothing. Coaches are increasingly worried about injuries and limit reps for star players and contact all around. Spring games barely exist as it is. So let’s give the spring a little juice by moving the dull FBS-FCS matchups from the regular season.
Will spring games vs I-AA teams draw enough eyeballs to justify the same payouts they’ve been getting? The big boys will still have giant checks rolling in, but this feels like a separate entity and TV might treat it that way. If people aren’t watching in spring, and tickets are cheaper because the game doesn’t count, the checks to the guests should shrink.
Instead, why not just give I-AA a bigger cut of the CFP money and let the spring “games” be regional P5 or G5 scrimmages (no point in flying 2000 miles unless it’s Hawaii) instead?
LikeLike
Army-Navy game should be on Veterans Day each year, Nov. 11th.
LikeLike
Their first round of playoffs is too late — third week of December. Fans need more lead time to plan travel.
LikeLike
“Their first round of playoffs is too late — third week of December. Fans need more lead time to plan travel.”
Schools too. Since schools currently don’t actually know their bowl before the ESPN show that announces them to the world, it’s a huge sprint in December to get everything organized. There’s preplanning that happens, but it’s still a ton of work for that month.
LikeLike
And am I the only one who questions the wisdom of an on-campus game the third Saturday in December? For most places that will either fall in the middle of final exams or after final exams have finished, in which case students will be heading home. Plus, how do players simultaneously study for/take finals and prepare for the first round of the playoffs? IMO, any playoff > 8 teams will of necessity require ending conference championships in order to fit the first round playoff games in the first two weeks of December.
LikeLike
Peter,
You aren’t alone in that, and the presidents will likely mention the academic issue if the ADs don’t. But most players take a light course load in season, plus they know how to plan around games. They’d take finals early (or scheduled around practice) like they do now with bowl prep. The first bowl this year is F 12/16, so there is precedent for teams playing that week.
The real issue is the “on campus” part. As you note, students may have already left (esp. schools on quarters – many P12 schools, NW, others). And people are preparing for holiday travel, so they’re less likely to want to travel for a game the week before Christmas.
The other issue is northern weather. Many northern college stadiums are not designed for use during winter. The fields can freeze solid and become a danger to the players, plus the stadium itself can be a danger and in danger. Ice on steps, tons of snow, pipes that should be empty by then can burst, sewage can freeze and burst lines, and there is no HVAC for bathrooms. A lot of these building are really, really old.
Even in Columbus, the odds of the high being below freezing on 12/17 are almost 25%. In MSP, the average high temp is several degrees below freezing. But they have a heated field now, you say. True, but Madison’s average high on 12/17 is right at freezing. So there’s a decent chance in the B10 that it wouldn’t be safe to play on campus. Of course, the B10 could reserve a local domed stadium as a backup site just in case (Indy, Detroit, MSP, Chicago?). But then they don’t get home field like everyone else does. Should everyone have to use a local neutral site? If so, we’re basically back to using bowls except for the B10 using someplace northern.
LikeLike
It’s not that cold in the Midwest in November. Average high in Madison, WI, is 45F and low is 30F. And it’s getting warmer. the Corn Belt has been moving north for decades.
https://weatherspark.com/y/12796/Average-Weather-in-Madison-Wisconsin-United-States-Year-Round
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-must-adapt-as-u-s-corn-belt-shifts-northward/
LikeLike
While I agree this is trending pretty close to the bowl system, I do wonder if the solution is for conferences to each designate one neutral site within their region to act as their ‘home’ site. Ex: B10 would pick Indy, SEC and ACC would take Atlanta, B12 would take Dallas, P12 would take… I dunno, the 49ers stadium. And the stadium used for the matchup is whoever is designated the home team (the higher ranked of the pairing).
Then again that’s where the problem of being a national conference then comes back to bite the B10 in particular — if USC makes the playoffs it’s hardly going to be a homefield advantage for them to fly clear to Indianapolis.
Personally as much as I love the idea of home sites, I just don’t think it’s doable. As you said, many northern stadiums are old and were never built with that function in mind. Even newer and renovated stadiums weren’t built with it in mind.
Gene Smith has said as much regarding Ohio Stadium, and OSU can barely handle getting 100k+ into and out of that area as it is on good weather days. I can’t imagine what the traffic situation would look like with icy conditions. It’d likely be a liability nightmare.
LikeLike
MD – I’ve suggested this in the past. The USC/UCLA dynamic complicates matters slightly. The CFP could “reserve” Indianapolis for use during the opening round weekend for the B1G or the most northern ACC schools. Every school is within 600 miles of Indy with the exception of Nebraska, Syracuse & BC. If schools in the non-CA B1G or northern ACC wanted to opt out of Indy by reserving a nearby NFL stadium they could, but it would be on their nickel. On the off chance two northern teams qualify to host, one game could be played on Friday and the next on Saturday. NFL stadiums can clean up and be ready for another event the next day. Not ideal, but workable.
Just getting around to reading the ESPN article on revising the CFB schedule and I love everything about it.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34263468/bowl-games-start-season-reimagining-college-football-calendar
The opening round on the third week in December is not ideal, but again workable.
I love the idea of bowl games to open the season and FCS games in the Spring. I would think that ESPN and some non-CFP bowls would still want to host a game of non-playoff schools in December, such as Alamo, Citrus, Tampa, Gator & Holiday. Those would still be top 25 matchups. I would limit the number of non-CFP bowl games to 10, and allow them to stage a game in August.
LikeLike
I dislike the idea of bowl games to open the season. No way to create good match ups as it’s not a reward for a good season. Northern fans likely won’t want to travel in August during the last few weeks of summer and the start of school season. Do they host them up north? Traditional sites would be useless. Plus you risk injury before the games count.
LikeLike
Kevin – the article states that the bowl games matchups would be based on the previous year’s record/ranking. Sure, some southern bowls may cease to exist, but you may get bowls in Green Bay, Minneapolis, Cleveland & Chicago with Southerners traveling north to spend their money and get out of the heat.
The current bowl system is broken. The bowls are just late December TV filler for ESPN. Crowds are pathetic for the most part and the locals don’t support their local bowls anymore. Many of the best players sit out. Even the NY6 have attendance problems when they aren’t a semifinal.
Would it be any worse in August than it currently is in late December? I think not.
LikeLike
I should add that Gene Smith pointed this issue out as well. His is a voice people might actually listen to on this topic, since OSU hosting a CFP game seems more likely than MN.
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2022/02/129347/gene-smith-doesn-t-think-ohio-state-should-host-college-football-playoff-games-in-winter-weather
During a press conference at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center on Wednesday, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he would not favor hosting a CFP game at the Shoe in bad weather. Instead, Smith would recommend playing the game at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, believing it would be better for the Buckeyes to play the game in a “clean environment.”
“I don’t want a hard surface for the players,” Smith said. “And I know the fans would love to have it in the Shoe and maybe it’s snowing or we’re playing whoever, but that surface is a whole new ballgame. And I would prefer to have the indoor elements and have a clean field. If it was this year, I would want (Ohio State quarterback C.J. Stroud) to have good weather. It’s just that simple.”
While Smith’s comments were immediately met with plenty of opposition on social media, he said he believes playing a CFP game indoors in Indianapolis rather than outdoors in Columbus would not subtract from the excitement of the game for Ohio State fans.
“We’ve been blessed to have experiences in (Lucas Oil Stadium) playing in the Big Ten championship and I think our fans understand that environment, they love the hotels, they love the restaurants and all that,” Smith said. “So while it’s difficult to take it away from the Shoe, I still think that’s the right thing to do for the players in the game.”
As part of the proposed College Football Playoff expansion model that would include first-round games hosted by the higher seeds, decision-makers have agreed on allowing northern teams to have the option to host those games in an indoor stadium of their choice rather than playing the games in adverse weather conditions. Smith said that was an important factor for schools in cold-weather climates as playoff discussions have continued.
“I know our fans rally around that, and they’d like to host Alabama up here. But now we have the flexibility to move into domes,” Smith said. “Now we can move into (Lucas Oil Stadium) or Ford Field (in Detroit) or Minneapolis or whatever if we ended up hosting. And I think that that’s important, because who knows what the inclement weather could be like at that time of year in any of our places in the north. So we need that flexibility.”
He isn’t opposed to the idea of playing CFP games in Ohio Stadium if they are played early enough in December, but says decisions on where to play the games would have to be made well enough in advance to allow the proper time to prepare for hosting a playoff game.
“Pinpointing a date where this thing ends up, we may look at the historical calendar and say it’s okay to play in Columbus,” Smith said. “But for us, it plays into the weather issue. The deeper you go in December, as you know, the more challenging it is here.
“So I’m kind of anxious to see how this playoff schedule actually will end up. When will it actually start? So that’s critical.”
Smith says he would not oppose teams in warm-weather climates hosting CFP games in their home stadiums even if Ohio State hosted a CFP game elsewhere.
“We would only do that because of weather,” said Smith, who was previously the athletic director at Arizona State before becoming Ohio State’s athletic director in 2005. “So I just want it for the north. I certainly wouldn’t want to go to Scottsdale and play in Glendale when you can play outdoors at Arizona State.”
He also said he thinks they should discuss eliminating CCGs if the CFP expands to 12+, in order to start the CFP a week earlier. I wonder if they’ll eventually find a way to morph the P5 CCGs into the first round of the playoff, so the P5 conferences still get their money but it’s officially part of the CFP so they can bill it as a much larger playoff.
LikeLike
Colin,
He did specifically ask about the third Saturday in December. Of course it’s warmer on average in November.
LikeLike
“He did specifically ask about the third Saturday in December. Of course it’s warmer on average in November.”
Oops, I misunderstood that. I thought we were talking about Turkey Weekend for the California schools.
LikeLike
Alan,
The opening round on the third week in December is not ideal, but again workable.
I love the idea of bowl games to open the season and FCS games in the Spring. I would think that ESPN and some non-CFP bowls would still want to host a game of non-playoff schools in December, such as Alamo, Citrus, Tampa, Gator & Holiday. Those would still be top 25 matchups. I would limit the number of non-CFP bowl games to 10, and allow them to stage a game in August.
I think starting that late is an issue for on-campus games.
I don’t see how they’re bowls in August. In December people are off from work and many want to travel to somewhere warm. In August it’s hot and school just started. Yay, let’s travel 2000 miles to Phoenix in August to be outside. Cities won’t be hosting all the special events and things. These will just be OOC games, and we already play those then. The only improvement is that they’ll get better matchups than some of the crappy buy games.
As for spring, I don’t know if coaches want an actual game. Most of them seem to prefer a scrimmage. And would fans tune in and/or pay big money for a spring I-AA game that doesn’t count? I doubt it. So where will the money for the I-AA schools come from? Nobody’s paying $500k for a spring scrimmage that’s on BTN+. Just cut I-AA a bigger check from the expanded CFP and stop the P5 from playing them (have it make you ineligible for the CFP).
LikeLike
The biggest CFB brands according to high school players. The results aren’t great for the P12 (#9 UO is only non-LA school in top 35), which has recruiting implications.
ttps://twitter.com/JeremyDarlow/status/1543062856026841088/photo/1
LikeLike
Sorry:
LikeLike
No doubt there are some Texas fans who want to argue with the list, but kids in their incoming class were 4–5 years old the last time the Longhorns won the Big XII. Texas A&M’s last great season was only a bit more recent. To a high-schooler, they are more-or-less equivalent.
It is a similar story with Michigan, Florida State, and USC languishing in the upper teens. I am not sure how Miami got to be #10, but you can find flaws in any list.
LikeLike
That list of brand rankings is complete bull droppings nonsense. Maryland ten places ahead of Wisconsin? Miami ahead of Notre Dame? North Carolina ahead of Michigan?
LikeLike
They’re polling high schoolers. Teenagers may have different perceptions from fogeys. They’re also volatile. Look at the changes.
LikeLike
Polls are usually crap because the participants are not randomly selected to represent the whole population, in this case high school football prospects or the sample size is too small for the results. No error percentage, sample size too small to rank 60+ schools, how were the 1000 selected … maybe they had a lot of participants from S. Florida .. that would skew the numbers toward Miami. Except for the very top, brands are very regional. Even at the top I expect that Ohio State does much better than Alabama in Ohio and vice versa.
LikeLike
Colin,
They saw WI’s horrible alternate uniforms and decided they prefer the UMD ones.
LikeLike
Brian: “They saw WI’s horrible alternate uniforms and decided they prefer the UMD ones.”
LOL, good one. Actually, the only unis that make my skin crawl are Oregon’s.
LikeLike
Colin,
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1286504-wisconsin-football-badgers-alternate-uniforms-for-nebraska-game-are-atrocities
Remember these?
UMD wore those “cool” MD flag-based uniforms that only HS kids could like.
LikeLike
I actually think that list is very accurate.
If you follow recruiting closely, it lines up pretty well with how recruits think about schools.
Schools like UNC, UCLA, Maryland are much higher in recruiting performance than what CFB fans would think of them.
Maryland for example has been 4th in recruiting several times since they joined the Big Ten behind only the Biggest 3 (OSU/PSU/Michigan).
They’ve been in the top half almost every year.
UNC outperforms most of the ACC in recruiting; typically just behind Miami, FSU, Clemson. Many years of top 4-6 finishes in recruiting.
LikeLike
z33k: “UNC outperforms most of the ACC in recruiting; typically just behind Miami, FSU, Clemson. Many years of top 4-6 finishes in recruiting.”
UNC is one of those schools that you’re always waiting to see when they finally put it all together. Big brand due to basketball, don’t totally ignore football like a lot of other basketball schools, good recruiting grounds, etc. They just never seem to get all the pieces in place. But I’m not shocked they’d be ranked highly with athletes. UNC is a brand unto itself.
UCLA and Maryland are kind of like that as well, though I don’t think they’re quite as big from a marketing perspective. But all three are big basketball schools in amazing football recruiting areas that could be consistently good if they could only keep their local talent. Mack Brown has recently done a better job at that.
LikeLike
Miami had the turnover chain. Remember, this is high school kids.
LikeLike
Yeah Miami is a flashy school, that will almost always play well with high school kids.
May look tacky to outsiders, but Miami sells to that audience (and almost always will). If they have a decent recruiter as coach, they should always be near the top of the ACC in recruiting given that location/brand.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3470202/2022/08/03/college-football-championship-realignment-mailbag/
Stewart Mandel’s mailbag. I’ll note that some B12 fans seem convinced he’s a P12 shill.
In a nutshell, it’s basically SDSU + SMU or nothing for the P12 most likely.
I think he’s too bullish on the P12 raiding the B12. I think the B12 exit fee is currently too large for any school to justify paying it to jump to the P12. Even if it dropped to $40M, that may take a decade just to break even and that’s before increased travel costs and losing old rivalries.
I am a lifelong Southerner, but pulling for the Pac-12 to survive and prosper. After San Diego State, are either Nevada or UNLV acceptable candidates? — Mark C.
Nothing against either of those two fine institutions, but if the Pac-12 brought either of them in, the remaining schools would basically have to write them a check from their own bank accounts, because they’re bringing zero new dollars to the league’s next TV deals.
Based on the conversations I’ve had, and reading between some tea leaves, the only remaining Group of 5 schools on the Pac-12’s radar are San Diego State and SMU. The former is fairly obvious, both due to its location and its strong athletic department. SMU’s appeal is part getting into the Dallas recruiting and TV market, and part that it’s highly ranked in academics (No. 68 nationally in US News) — which Pac-12 presidents really do care about. However, it’s also debatable whether either or both will add enough per-school value to prevent the existing 10 from getting their slice of the pie.
I would not discount two other possibilities for the Pac-12. One is the league stays at 10 programs. It would be much the same strategy the Big 12 followed from 2011-21, which benefitted its schools financially but then of course left them a sitting duck when Oklahoma and Texas left. This to me is the likely outcome if they end up landing a less-than-desired number from their next set of media rights. (If that happens, I’d also expect to see Oregon and possibly others push for a bigger slice of the revenue).
Or — they do better than expected, and try to use it as incentive to add schools from the Big 12.
Obviously, the Pac-12 had that opportunity a year ago and declined. (The LA Times recently reported that of all people, USC president Carol Folt put the kibosh on expansion at that time.) I’ve been told the conference did its diligence and found that only a couple of the Big 12 holdovers would have added any value. But circumstances have changed, and if commissioner George Kliavkoff and/or his presidents deem it important to get into Texas, it would make sense to pursue TCU and Baylor, or perhaps even Houston, before turning to SMU and San Diego State.
The tricky thing is that the Big 12 Grant of Rights goes for a year longer than the Pac-12’s, so it wouldn’t line up with the start of the Pac-12’s next TV deal. But that could also work to their advantage. The Pac-12 is going to know its post-USC/UCLA valuation a year or more earlier than the Big 12 schools find out their post-Oklahoma/Texas fate. Probably before the end of this calendar year. That guaranteed money could be tempting to a school like TCU that will still have no idea the new Big 12’s value. And, if they wait until 2025, they can defect without having to pay an exit fee.
To be clear, I would not place the likelihood of this scenario particularly high, though certainly higher than anyone going in the reverse direction.
LikeLike
Mandel obviously does not know the B12 exit fees. A 2025 exit has no GOR issues but still requires 2 years of distributions and the share of exit fees from TX/OK to be forfeited. If there is ever an opening it will be at the conclusion of the next B12 deal since the expected lower media contract will lower the exit fee and there is no forfeit of the TX/OK $$.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/nfl-launches-nfl-announces-pricing-and-features.html
The NFL is getting into streaming itself in the US, with NFL+.
The release also spells out pricing and features for the new service (which you can sign up for here). The basic NFL+ offering will be $4.99 a month or $30 for a full year. It will include live in-market and primetime games on mobile and tablet devices, live out-of-market preseason games across all devices, live game audio (home, away and national calls) for every game of the season, and ad-free NFL library programming on-demand.
The premium offering will be $9.99 a month or $79.99 a year, and will include the basic features mentioned above, but also features that formerly lived in Game Pass, including ad-free full-game and condensed-game replays and coaches’ film, including the All-22 angle. (That extremely popular feature was missing for the first two weeks of last season, but then was returned to Game Pass after that.) It’s notable that season-ticket holders will receive free access to NFL+ Premium as one of their “Membership Club” benefits this fall.
There are several key things with this development. The biggest thing that’s new here is the league doing some U.S. streaming of live regular-season and postseason games themselves. Yes, it’s only in-market and primetime games, and only to mobile devices. And this is the package that was previously with Verizon and Yahoo, which offered it for free. So having that package go from free to paid is a loss for consumers.
…
Now, the NFL can use that package as the centerpiece of a larger U.S. direct-to-consumer strategy. They’re rolling in their previous limited DTC offering of Game Pass as well. And for those who already subscribed to Game Pass and who want to maintain that subscription with the new NFL+ Premium, there will now be more features in there (the live games and so on previously in the Verizon/Yahoo package) than there were in the old Game Pass.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/youtube/nfl-sunday-ticket-google-youtube.html
Also, Google has bid on NFL’s Sunday ticket package. Apple is still the favorite, though.
And there’s yet another way for companies to get into the NFL business:
That being said, the idea of Google bidding makes the NFL happier with the added competition for Sunday Ticket rights. The NFL is also negotiating a partial sale of NFL Media which includes NFL Network, RedZone Channel, NFL Films and the upcoming NFL+ streaming service. It remains to be seen if the same company that gets Sunday Ticket will also take on the equity stake in NFL Media but either way, the NFL will be making bank.
LikeLike
The NFL RedZone Channel is amazing. That’s a channel that I happily pay for in lieu of the whole Sunday Ticket package, particularly since I I live in the home market of my favorite team (the hapless Chicago Bears to go along with my hapless Illini).
LikeLike
I’d love it if someone would stream the All 22. My son and I would be all over that.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-there-is-a-singular-threat
The Pac-12 Conference athletic directors are anxiously waiting to see what happens in the next 24 hours. The conference’s 30-day, exclusive negotiating period with ESPN and Fox is set to expire Aug. 4.
The ADs I spoke with said they haven’t seen any potential revenue numbers yet.
Odd that twitter has been throwing out numbers, then, huh?
In the meantime, the athletic directors of the Pac-12’s remaining 10 universities are still communicating regularly and tell me they’re upbeat.
Said one AD, “The dialogue, candor, and environment have been positive. Everyone is moving in the same direction.”
Are there still threats out there?
Sure.
Said the AD: “It’s a singular threat — the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. That’s it. The Big 12 threat is laughable.”
Laughable might be a bit strong. The B12 fans have been going overboard, but just due to exit fees the B12 is safer than the P12.
Would the Big Ten decide to further expand and add Oregon and Washington? Or maybe chase Stanford? I’m going to dive deeper into the calculus of that in the coming days. But the prevailing thought is that none of those universities generate enough potential media rights value by themselves to make doing so a no-brainer.
In fact, I floated that Oregon-Washington-Stanford question to a current Big Ten Conference athletic director, who waved it off.
“I think Stanford might be interesting to our conference presidents just because of the academic piece,” he said, “but unless Notre Dame is coming in too, I don’t think further expansion happens in this cycle.”
That’s where my thoughts have been, though others disagree. We’ll see soon.
There have been reports about the Big 12 trying to poach Utah, Colorado, Arizona and ASU. Nobody at those universities seems much interested at this point. The financial advantage just doesn’t appear to be there. But the noise annoyed the Pac-12 anyway.
…
Kliavkoff said that several Pac-12 universities have shared communications they’ve received from the Big 12 and other conferences.
“If they hear something or if someone from a different conference is approaching them, they forward those messages,” he said. “Those are fun to read. I’ve read every single one that has been sent to our conference over the last three weeks. It’s amazing how brazen those other conferences are.”
He said conferences, as in plural. Who besides the B12 is reaching out?
[talking NIL]
The trend in this space is clear. Wealthy alumni and gift givers lining up to write checks that will help athletes at their respective universities. It’s why the size and power of ASU’s alumni base is so interesting. I took a quick look at where the graduates of Arizona State live:
The article has a graphic.
1. AZ – 317k
2. CA – 60k
3. TX – 18k
4. WA – 13k
5. CO – 12k
6. IL, 7. FL, 8, OR, 9. NY, 10. VA
This is why the AZ schools want to stay in the P12. They have more alumni in OR + WA than in TX.
LikeLike
https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/3/23290427/utah-to-the-big-12-former-athletic-director-chris-hill-weighs-in-on-the-debate
Former Utah AD says UU wants to stay in the P12.
On Wednesday, a piece by Pac-12 insider Jon Wilner was published in which he interviewed former Utes athletic director Chris Hill, who led Utah from the Mountain West to the Pac-12 in 2011.
Hill’s stance: Utah shouldn’t leave the Pac-12, as he sees “no benefit” from departing for the Big 12.
Additionally, Hill said that the Utah athletic department administration does not want to leave the Pac-12.
“They all want to stay,” he said. “They love the schools they’re associated with and the areas they recruit and play. Utah has a lot of alumni in the Bay Area. There aren’t alumni in Waco (Texas, where Big 12 school Baylor is located). Those things matter.”
…
Hill said regarding media markets that a school’s “market is their market,” regardless of what conference it plays in.
“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league,” he said.
Hill also said that he feels the Pac-12 should not try to add more schools right now after losing USC and UCLA to the Big Ten.
“If the Big 12 schools are off the table, then you could go to the Mountain West,” Hill said. “But I’d stabilize. I wouldn’t feel the need to take somebody now. Take a breath.”
LikeLike
Some other quotes from that article:
“…..Hill believes football should be treated as a separate business within college sports and will eventually feature a 48-team upper division. That bifurcation could happen in the next few years — or not for a decade.
Unless the Big Ten or SEC come calling, the 36 schools remaining in the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC must recalibrate their strategy and beware of lifeboats that aren’t as sturdy as they appear.
“Their market is their market,” Hill said, referring to the media rights value held by any given school. “Arizona’s worth in the Big 12 is the same as it is in the Pac-12. The finances of moving won’t help anybody.
“What difference does it make if you’re getting $35 million a year in the Pac-12 versus $40 million a year in the Big 12? Either way, it’s not going to move the dial for you.
“The only benefit from switching is to destroy the other league….””
And of course, what you NOTABLY deleted between “after losing USC and UCLA to the Big Ten” and the last paragraph:
:The schools currently in the Big 12 could be difficult to poach because of the league’s bylaws, which feature a 99-year commitment.
Section 3 (“Withdrawals and Sanctions”) suggests an exit fee equal to two years of conference revenue — approximately $80 million — would apply:
“Any Withdrawing Member shall pay to the Conference a commitment buyout fee (the “Buyout Amount”) in an amount equal to the sum of the amount of distributions that otherwise would be paid to the Member during the final two years of its membership in the Conference.”
Would that stipulation apply to the four schools entering the conference next year (Cincinnati, UCF, Houston and Brigham Young)? That depends on the documents they have signed to this point….”
LikeLike
bullet,
And of course, what you NOTABLY deleted between “after losing USC and UCLA to the Big Ten” and the last paragraph:
:The schools currently in the Big 12 could be difficult to poach because of the league’s bylaws, which feature a 99-year commitment.
??? I don’t see that line in the article. The only thing I see there is an ad. I didn’t skip any text visible to me in that last bit. Either your confusing it with another article, or something weird is going on.
Are you quoting the Wilner piece? Because I didn’t link to that one. I linked to one that wasn’t behind a paywall that was about Wilner’s piece.
LikeLike
Didn’t seem like you to skip important context.
Yes, I looked at Wilner’s piece. The Utah piece is basically a word for word excerpt from Wilner, but deletes that part. That sentence about the exit fees, “The schools currently in the Big 12 could be difficult to poach because of the league’s bylaws, which feature a 99-year commitment,” is actually part of a paragraph. The Utah writer clearly didn’t want his readers to see that.
LikeLike
I discovered the paywall basically just required you to give an e-mail address and accept e-mails from the Mercury News.
LikeLike
Okay, that makes more sense.
Yes, I think those in the know realize that the B12 exit fee basically eliminates poaching them by the ACC or P12, just like the ACC exit fee and GOR protects them. Only the P12 is vulnerable to poaching by the other M3 conferences since it has no exit fee and the GOR is almost over.
Good to know about the paywall.
LikeLike
Honestly I don’t blame them but they if they would get closer to reality, that would be nice.
LikeLike
Dear Mr. Canzano:
What’s with Cal, a school whose future you routinely ignore? Is it to be relegated to the Mountain West with WSU and OrSU in the event the Pac doesn’t survive?
LikeLike
That’s a tough question to answer right now.
In order of likelihood (in my opinion):
* The P12 could stay as is – probably $25-30M/yr in TV
* The P12 could add some G5 schools – probably $20-25M/yr in TV
* The B10 could take Cal – probably $80M or more/yr in TV
* The B12 could take Cal – probably $25-30M/yr in TV
* The ACC could take Cal – probably $20-30M/yr in TV
LikeLike
Dodd’s latest
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/conference-realignment-big-ten-interest-in-additional-pac-12-teams-has-cooled-big-12-positioned-well/
Big 12 consultants are telling them what they want to hear.
Mark Shapiro will have a significant stake. The president of Endeavor — a powerful global sports, entertainment and content company — is currently advising the Big 12 on its next media rights deal after its current agreement expires ahead of the 2025 season.
[snip]
Without Texas and Oklahoma, the Big 12 is valued north of $30 million annually per school, CBS Sports reported last week.
“The numbers look like they favor us,” one Big 12 AD said. “Not by a huge amount. This is not like comparing Texas to Texas State. But there seems to be a noticeable difference.”
[snip]
The Big 12 continues to be engaged with both Fox and ESPN for its new right deal, which will begin in 2025.
Karl Benson wars of collusion.
“Maybe the reason Washington and Oregon didn’t go with USC and UCLA [to the Big Ten] at the same time is the fear of collusion,” the now-retired Benson told CBS Sports. “That’s a legitimate concern of the damages that one conference does to another.”
No more Big Ten expansion for now
industry sources have indicated the Big Ten is no longer as interested in adding California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington. Rightsholders were balking at paying the same amount for those schools as the 16 Big Ten schools going forward ($80 million-$100 million).
[snip]
More and more stakeholders now believe the Fighting Irish will ultimately stay independent.
Big 12 schools would have gone to the PAC 12 last year.
Sources told CBS Sports this week the Pac-12 vote was 8-4 against taking any Big 12 schools. It would sure be interesting to be find out those Pac-12 schools who voted for expansion a year ago. We already know USC president Carol Folt “shut down” interest in expansion.
“We all would have jumped,” one Big 12 AD told CBS Sports in reference to the Pac-12’s interest in getting into Texas.
Some other discussion on #PAC12AfterDark and the Big 12’s relationship with ESPN and FOX
LikeLike
Taking it piece by piece:
CBS can “report” whatever value it wants for the B12 deal. The B12 hasn’t entered negotiations with the networks yet. Everything now is guesstimation, probably driven by Silverman to help the B12. I’ll wait until I see final numbers for both conferences to decide who won.
Collusion would be a concern for a CFP that was only B10 vs SEC. That was Benson’s example, referring to BYU in the 90s. The B10 taking P12 schools isn’t collusion, it’s just a business decision. I also don’t see an anti-trust issue. There is plenty of competition left with a stronger SEC out there, plus the ACC and B12. The NCAA has anti-trust issues, but I don’t see it at the conference level.
As for nobody ever gutting a conference, I guess that’s semantics. The Big 8 destroyed the SWC. The MWC killed the WAC. Did the ACC not gut the Big East?
Did B10 interest in the P12 4 diminish, or was it overhyped in the first place? The B10 was “considering” them. Once they heard the numbers networks would pay for them, their consideration probably ended pretty quickly.
It’s nice to see the stakeholders catching up to where most of the knowledgeable fans already were – ND just wanted to get paid by NBC. Unless the numbers come out miles apart, ND will happy to stay where they are.
Why keep blaming Folt if the vote was 8-4 against expansion? She just saved everyone some time. We still have no evidence the P12 would be worth more if they had raided the B12.
Late-night West Coast games are referred to as occurring the “Fourth Window” — after 10 p.m. ET. As much ribbing as the Pac-12 has received for those games (#Pac12AfterDark), there is no way around them. They are valuable programming that fills late-night TV slots with guaranteed ratings.
That’s why the late window is key for the Pac-12. It may be why ESPN could remain engaged with the conference beyond Thursday’s reported expiration of an exclusive 30-day negotiating window. Without the Pac-12, ESPN may not have late-night football. Fox is already set there with its Mountain West contract.
One industry course speculated: If ESPN doesn’t get a piece of the Big Ten, does it go all-in with whatever is left of the Pac-12? More importantly, if ESPN does get a portion of the Big Ten, does the Pac-12 continue to market without either of the two biggest college football rightsholders (ESPN, Fox) having interest?
What choice would they have other than continuing to market?
LikeLike
Did B10 interest in the P12 4 diminish, or was it overhyped in the first place?
I would bet on “overhyped in the first place.” Apparently where this is landing (in Dodd’s opinion anyway) is no further major conference moves in this cycle. Exactly what a number of us believed was the most likely outcome all along.
LikeLike
But it’s a lot harder to get clicks if you just write that from the start.
LikeLike
‘Cycle’ is the type of ambiguous word Dodd always uses. What do you consider a cycle? Did Texas to SEC begin a new cycle that ended with USC to B1G? Or is ’36 the beginning of the next cycle for you?
LikeLike
The ’36 cycle will start as early as ’31-’32.
SEC and Big Ten are likely to be targeting similar schools in the ACC. You have to think both would put out feelers very early.
LikeLike
What do you consider a cycle?
A period of a couple years when all or many of the conferences’ TV deals expire and are being re-negotiated.
LikeLike
Conference moves are like Lays’ potato chips: you can’t have just one. But at some point, all of the logical available switches have happened, and you have a new temporary equilibrium until someone pushes over the next domino. It can happen at any time, but is usually at the end of a media deal.
LikeLike
😯 Um…In other news:
https://frontofficesports.com/nbc-big-ten-nfl/
LikeLike
Without the 1st choice of game, will an NBC primetime BiG game be all that? And BTW, I hardly think that being on multiple broadcast networks enhances the value of the NFL aside from creating more opportunities to play marquee games during attractive TV time slots.
LikeLike
I hardly think that being on multiple broadcast networks enhances the value of the NFL aside from creating more opportunities to play marquee games during attractive TV time slots.
The NFL has been doing this for 50+ years. You think they don’t know how to maximize value? Each new package they create and separately sell adds greater marginal value than if they had stayed with the partners they had before.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
The 1st choice goes to whichever network pays for it. Fox and ESPN took turns having 1st pick. Maybe Fox, CBS, and NBC would take turns choosing first.
Being on multiple networks has several benefits for the NFL:
* All of them have to hype the NFL, promote upcoming games, and add shoulder programming to recoup their payments, so viewers are seeing NFL promos and shows on every channel they watch.
* The ubiquity of the NFL makes it seem more important.
* The various networks bid against each other so the prices keep rising. No one network could pay them nearly as much as all of them combined.
* They have become the property a network must have to be considered big time. That’s why the streamers want them.
The B10 will benefit in many ways. The other networks can’t trash the B10 if they also air its games. ESPN can’t bias all their coverage to the SEC and ACC if they paid for the B10 too. If the CFP is spread over multiple networks, having the B10 tied into them will push them to want to connect the B10 and CFP – more B10 teams in the CFP is good for them, more B10 success in the CFP is good for them. And, as above, the networks have to bid against each other so the B10 is maximizing revenue.
Think how great the PR was for the SEC with their CBS coverage. They were the only ones CBS covered, so they completely marketed the SEC and downplayed everyone else. If Fox/FS1, ABC/ESPN, CBS, NBC, and even a streamer are all showing the B10, some of them won’t air anyone else so they’ll promote the B10 exclusively.
LikeLike
https://gopherhole.com/boards/threads/nbc-sees-big-ten-being-%E2%80%98nfl-of-college-conferences%E2%80%99-proposing-a-strategy-that-calls-for-back-to-back-prime-time-big-ten-and-nfl-games-on-sat-sun.106879/
Here’s a version for those who can’t access FOS.
Now, as rights negotiations with the conference near the finish line, NBC is proposing a strategy that calls for back-to-back, prime-time Big Ten and NFL games on Saturday and Sunday nights, said sources.
* NBC is pitching a fall Saturday football schedule that includes triple-header coverage of Big Ten games on Fox, CBS, and NBC from early afternoon to night.
* The slate would be followed by NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” the most-watched show in prime time for a record 11 straight years.
“The Big Ten would have exposure in every TV home,” said one source. “It would also be a smart idea to follow the model of the most successful sports league in America.”
NBC, ESPN, and Amazon declined to comment on negotiations. The Big Ten did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Billion-Dollar Deal
The Big Ten is expected to command at least $1.25 billion annually for its next media rights deal from bidders including NBC, Amazon, ESPN/ABC, and CBS Sports. The winner will air games alongside Fox Sports, the conference’s primary TV partner and an operating partner in the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
…..so Fox and CBS are going to be OK with NBC showing a ND game in the afternoon, while they’re showing a BIG game?
LikeLike
Doug,
CFB games have always had direct competition, often within the same network family. How often did ESPN and ESPN2 both show a noon B10 game back in the day? There are 4 or more games on major networks at 3:30. Likewise, there can be 4 in primetime.
NBC only has 7 home games, and not all of those are big draws. The networks will use their picks wisely to get the largest difference in viewers between their game and anyone else’s.
Besides, it’s not like the SEC won’t be playing games at the same time too. Direct competition is unavoidable in CFB. The good news is that ND usually starts at 2:30, so they’re out of synch with other games. If you watch the noon B10 game and then look for a 3:30 game, there’ll be the next B10 game or the ND game that’s an hour in. And the ND game will end while the 3:30 game is still going, so you can pick up those viewers.
LikeLike
If true, it’s a brilliant strategy. FARM-thinking at It’s best! 🌲😉
LikeLike
😂 I really shouldn’t thumb-type replies on my phone. Yikes! -This was for Redwood86!
LikeLike
Counterpoint to Marc & Brian’s argument is the Olympics. One network gets its all. And they do put it out to bid just like the NFL does. I don’t think the IOC gets short-changed.
I get the argument that having a network that only shows your conference is great. That is Notre Dame’s strategy. But, that is a different argument than spreading it around willy-nilly. SEC was on CBS and ESPN. Period. Soon, they will be on ESPN/ABC period – counter to the Brian strategy recommendation. Finally, I thought the BiG and Fox were becoming more of a “couple” so to speak, with Fox the conference’s “preferred” partner.
In terms of branding, I think there is something to be said for being the anti-SEC/ESPN conference. Moreover, having all of your non-BTN games on broadcast networks could be superior to having to count on people buying a cable/satellite/streaming (i.e. – YTTV, Hulu, etc.) package to get ESPN. This is where CBS (via Paramount+) and NBC (via Peacock) are moving to the future, while Fox is a neanderthal. If all of the content is accessible from the broadcast network’s streaming service, one can evade cable/satellite services (assuming no antenna coverage available). Fox (and BTN?) still lock one into the cable/satellite ecosystem.
Imagine if I could spend a lot less money to watch BiG football than the SEC *and ACC). Think that wouldn’t make some difference?
LikeLike
If you think the NFL would do just as well if they put every game on one network, then I can’t help you. Amazing that you know this, and after a half-century they still don’t.
I thought the BiG and Fox were becoming more of a “couple” so to speak, with Fox the conference’s “preferred” partner.
I don’t believe that’s new. I would be surprised if Fox winds up carrying more games than they do now.
In terms of branding, I think there is something to be said for being the anti-SEC/ESPN conference.
For the average viewer, ESPN is not the evil SEC empire. They are the only network that every P5 league is on (and almost every G5 league too). They have wall-to-wall CFB coverage all season long, including the most popular pregame show. Unlike Fox, NBC, or CBS, they don’t go back to non-sports programming when the games are over. Sports is all they do.
As long as ESPN has at least some games, they have to promote the Big Ten. Going completely dark on ESPN would be a big risk.
Moreover, having all of your non-BTN games on broadcast networks could be superior to having to count on people buying a cable/satellite/streaming (i.e. – YTTV, Hulu, etc.) package to get ESPN. This is where CBS (via Paramount+) and NBC (via Peacock) are moving to the future.
I am not sure I follow your reasoning. Paramount+ and Peacock are not easier to get than ESPN. They might be cheaper at the moment because they are not as well established. In the end, nobody is in business to give their networks away for free.
In the end, almost everyone has some kind of package, right? Those who cut the cord are not going back to rabbit ears; they are buying what they want à la carte, or with another bundler like Google or Hulu.
Imagine if I could spend a lot less money to watch BiG football than the SEC *and ACC).
Sure, we would all love that, but the media providers want you to spend more, not less. Sorry.
LikeLike
One thing to remember about ESPN’s CFB coverage vs. NBC’s coverage of the Olympics is the role of the playoff committee and 24-7 sports talking heads. NBC analysts and ex-IOC members aren’t voting on who makes it to the 100m finals or hockey gold medal match. As long as ESPN is covering the CFB playoffs and showing games from all the major conferences, it makes sense for the B1G to maintain some relationship with them. Having a strong partnership with Fox, and others, is smart and provides leverage. Trying to shun ESPN makes no sense for the near term.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
Counterpoint to Marc & Brian’s argument is the Olympics. One network gets its all. And they do put it out to bid just like the NFL does. I don’t think the IOC gets short-changed.
The Olympics is a 2-week long event every 2 years. It takes incessant promos on every NBC channel to get people to know when and where to watch, and they still get tons of complaints that people can’t find things. The primary market is non-sports fans.
That’s very different from a weekly sport that everyone knows when and basically where to watch it. The primary market is casual sports fans, who know which channels usually show games.
NBC paid $7.75B to extend their Olympics deal from 2021-2032.
The NFL just got $113B for their new deal for 2023-2033.
I know which model better fits CFB, and it sure looks like it works financially.
I get the argument that having a network that only shows your conference is great. That is Notre Dame’s strategy. But, that is a different argument than spreading it around willy-nilly.
Three major OTA networks plus ESPN is willy-nilly?
SEC was on CBS and ESPN. Period. Soon, they will be on ESPN/ABC period – counter to the Brian strategy recommendation.
The SEC was on CBS, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and SECN.
Finally, I thought the BiG and Fox were becoming more of a “couple” so to speak, with Fox the conference’s “preferred” partner.
They are, but Fox can only carry so many games.
B14: 63 conference games + 35 OOC games = 98 games
B16: 72 conference games + 40OOC games = 112 games (+14 games)
Current TV deal:
ESPN:
* 27 total games.
* All intraconference games must air on ABC, ESPN or ESPN2.
* Non-conference games can air on ESPNU.
* At least six games in primetime on ABC or ESPN.
FOX:
* 24-27 total games to air on FOX & FS1.
* Up to nine games per season will air in primetime.
* FOX will air the conference championship game every season.
* FOX Sports will have the first choice of the weeks they want the top choice of games.
That’s up to 54 games, leaving 44 for BTN.
Well, how many more games will Fox want? They still have other obligations, plus other networks are willing to pay a lot. Let’s assume BTN wants the same 44 games. That leaves 68.
Does Fox want 34 games? I doubt it. Let’s say they stick with 27, leaving 41 games.
Where do those go? ESPN just picked up the SEC, and then the SEC expanded so they need to drop some B10 games.
CBS wants 14 (27 left). If NBC also takes 14, that would leave 13 for ESPN.
In terms of branding, I think there is something to be said for being the anti-SEC/ESPN conference.
Agreed, but ESPN is too powerful in sports, CFB in particular, to not include if possible.
Moreover, having all of your non-BTN games on broadcast networks could be superior to having to count on people buying a cable/satellite/streaming (i.e. – YTTV, Hulu, etc.) package to get ESPN.
It’d be nice, but Fox wants some of their games on FS1 so it’s impossible. Avoiding ESPN/2/U is also really hard in CFB. And since they need some way to get BTN, they can get ESPN as well.
Realistically, how would you fit 7-16 games on OTA networks only? They don’t want RU-IL games. You need second tier outlets like cable channels.
This is where CBS (via Paramount+) and NBC (via Peacock) are moving to the future,
They are, but the B10 games will have to be on OTA. The B10 will allow co-streaming, but they aren’t going to accept exclusive streaming on those tiny platforms.
while Fox is a neanderthal.
Fox does streaming (not well, perhaps). They have an app, or you can use the website.
If all of the content is accessible from the broadcast network’s streaming service, one can evade cable/satellite services (assuming no antenna coverage available). Fox (and BTN?) still lock one into the cable/satellite ecosystem.
The B10 wants you to pay for BTN. You can do it via streaming if you prefer.
Imagine if I could spend a lot less money to watch BiG football than the SEC *and ACC). Think that wouldn’t make some difference?
You mean, like if CBS, Fox, and NBC all showed a lot of B10 games? You said that was a bad thing, spreading games willy-nilly.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
2. Tick, tock Notre Dame
The post-Big Ten realignment wave seems to be in the same situation as the post-SEC realignment wave was at this time last summer. That is, nothing big is likely to happen until Notre Dame provides some clarity. And no, alliances don’t count as “big.”
But this situation is different from last year’s situation was for Notre Dame, enough so that many around the industry are genuinely curious to see what the Irish decide to do. Kevin Warren’s comments at Big Ten media days last week did nothing to stop the speculation.
“We will not expand just to expand,” the Big Ten commissioner said. “It will be strategic, it will add additional value to our conference, and it will provide a platform to even have our student-athletes be put on a larger platform so they can build their careers but also that they have an opportunity to grow and learn from an education and from an athletic standpoint.”
Power brokers with the Irish have provided mixed reactions to last month’s CBS Sports report that the school wants $75 million per year from NBC in its new TV deal to stay independent, although no one in South Bend is batting an eye at the idea of the peacock needing shoulder programming from another conference in order to strengthen. (That could come via the Big Ten when the conference finalizes its new TV deal in the next few weeks, although Notre Dame’s NBC contract runs through 2025-26.)
The fact several around the industry view that $75 million figure as a bargain — especially when the Irish’s current NBC deal pays a fraction of that — likely shows that Notre Dame can, and needs to, aim higher.
Of course, the Irish would get more — a lot more — from the Big Ten. And if the Irish were to bring rival Stanford aboard as a partner, the possibility of AAU admittance could be on the horizon as well, no small feat for a school with an undergraduate enrollment of fewer than 10,000 students.
“I believe Father John (Jenkins) and I believe Jack (Swarbrick), I really do,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said at media days when asked about his concern level of Notre Dame potentially looking around. “I know both of them well. I have great respect and admiration for them. I worked there, I think I know the place. I have two kids there, one’s a student-athlete. And I take them at their word. They really have enjoyed the relationship, and their Olympic sports have benefited being part of the ACC, and their football team plays five games a year in the ACC.
“At the end of the day, they very much value independence. And I respect that. I do. In some ways, you really admire it. And I think their intention remains — as Jack has stated publicly — that they want to hold on to independence. And they’re getting close to redoing their television deal. So that’s kind of next for them relative to the football piece of a television deal.”
Asked whether the Irish’s new TV deal could affect the ACC’s arrangement with them, Phillips said: “We stay close. Jack’s on our calls, same as Father John, so there’s lots of interaction. I guess we’ll know more as they move down the path. But it has been a mutually beneficial relationship. And those are the best kinds of partnerships that you can have, is when they benefit both entities.”
Remember, the ACC owns the grant of rights for only Notre Dame’s Olympic sports, meaning Irish football would be a money-maker wherever it ends up, although there would be an exit fee if the Irish were to join a conference other than the ACC.
“I rely on Jack Swarbrick, who’s so intelligent and is always at the front end of all these decisions,” football head coach Marcus Freeman said last week. “I know we won’t ever be in a bad situation. I think being independent is something that makes us unique, and it’s kind of what Notre Dame was built on, is being able to play a schedule that’s truly coast to coast and not confined to one certain geographical area. And as long as we’re not in a position to fail, right, in terms of as a football program, we’ll continue to be independent.
“If Jack Swarbrick thinks we’re at a disadvantage of being independent, I’m sure he’ll make a decision for us to join a conference. But again, I got two bosses: one being my wife, and Jack Swarbrick’s the other, so obviously I trust his decisions.”
LikeLike
Of course, the Irish would get more — a lot more — from the Big Ten. And if the Irish were to bring rival Stanford aboard as a partner, the possibility of AAU admittance could be on the horizon as well…
I didn’t know that your chances of AAU admittance go up if you join a conference with Stanford.
LikeLike
Always funny to see lines like that; the AAU issue is sort of this bizarro sideshow when it comes to college football.
So much misunderstanding about its role in all of this.
(And given the Nebraska exit, just curious to phrase it as such… especially when some Big Ten schools voted Nebraska out).
LikeLike
“I didn’t know that your chances of AAU admittance go up if you join a conference with Stanford.”
Apparently Notre Dame needs help raising its academic profile. That’s new.
LikeLike
Who knows where he’s getting the rationale for this, but I doubt Fortuna just made this up out of thin air. I’m thinking a source told him this. Whether it’s accurate, who knows? But I’d love to know what distinguishes Rice (in since 1985) from Notre Dame (not in) for AAU purposes.
LikeLike
ND ranks low in federal research, national academy members, faculty awards won, citations, other research, number of PhDs granted, and number of postdocs. That’s every category AAU looks at. Their best ranking when NE got the boot was #70, with 3 of them outside the top 100. They averaged #93 on the primary criteria.
Rice is a member, so I don’t know their rankings. But take WF as a comparison. They averaged #59 on the primary criteria with none over #100 and they aren’t in.
It basically comes down to how research-focused a school is. ND is more undergraduate focused.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Colin,
The fact several around the industry view that $75 million figure as a bargain — especially when the Irish’s current NBC deal pays a fraction of that — likely shows that Notre Dame can, and needs to, aim higher.
Of course, the Irish would get more — a lot more — from the Big Ten. And if the Irish were to bring rival Stanford aboard as a partner, the possibility of AAU admittance could be on the horizon as well, no small feat for a school with an undergraduate enrollment of fewer than 10,000 students.
I don’t know about $75M being a bargain, but it does reinforce the point that the deal isn’t crazy. Their current deal (now up to $22M, but averages $15M) is terribly undervalued, but the SEC on CBS deal was even worse ($55M – went to $300M from ESPN).
I don’t see why ND would need to aim higher, considering they would also keep getting paid by the ACC (about $11M pre-COVID). That would put ND at $86M before getting their CFP money (currently $3.5M + $6M for any appearance). So ND would be sitting around $90M per year in total.
The latest numbers estimate the B10 deal being at least $1.25B, or $78.1/school just for media rights. The total payout should be over $90M. I think ND will be fine, even if the B10 was getting $100M or even $110M. They just need to be in ballpark, and well above the M3.
I don’t see how getting Stanford into the B10 would help ND gain AAU status. None of the AAU members give pity votes – NE got kicked out because WI and MI didn’t vote for them.
Six current AAU members are private schools with fewer than 10,000 students, with 4 more that are still smaller than ND. Out of 65 members, that’s pretty decent.
LikeLike
Who knows where he’s getting the rationale for this, but I doubt Fortuna just made this up out of thin air. I’m thinking a source told him this. Whether it’s accurate, who knows? But I’d love to know what distinguishes Rice (in since 1985) from Notre Dame (not in) for AAU purposes.
LikeLike
Ugh.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-georgia-launches-reconnaissance
John Canzano lashes out at internet reporting on the P12, especially Jason Scheer from Arizona’s 247 site.
There’s a real shortage of sourced, in-depth reporting when it comes to the Pac-12 Conference and its media rights conundrum. I’m only giving you what I can verify with multiple, well-placed sources for that reason. I appreciate you being here for it.
Three things:
• The 30-day exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and Fox is closing (or already closed) today. I think the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors have a solid idea of the early media rights valuation, but several ADs told me on Wednesday that they hadn’t yet seen numbers. I believe them. I don’t think the conference wants that information out there yet, and I expect the Pac-12 to slow play this. They’ll get ESPN’s first offer, but not its best offer. The rest of the market needs a chance to bid and that won’t come until after the Big Ten finalizes its media package. Any numbers you hear or see are just guesses until you hear and see them from a sourced entity.
• There were erroneous reports that originated from media members, particularly in Arizona, about the conference’s four corners schools meeting with the Big 12 Conference. I’ve talked with high-level sources at all four of those institutions (Utah, Arizona, ASU and Colorado). No meetings were ever scheduled or held. One of the ADs from those universities doubled down when I asked with, “No meeting with Big 12 and George (Kliavkoff) is kicking ass.”
The message-board clowns who reported the meetings as fact just aren’t sourced. They’re spitballing and trying to stay relevant. As I wrote in a column on Wednesday, there is (and always has been) only one threat to the Pac-12 — the Big Ten. It remains the lone threat.
• I’m more interested in the “kicking ass” part of that AD’s quote, aren’t you? Kliavkoff fashions himself a problem solver. I want to see if he’s as good as advertised. On that front, I keep circling back to a potential “loose partnership” with the ACC, which the Pac-12 began exploring a few weeks ago.
If the Pac-12 is looking for creative and new revenue, inviting ESPN to enhance the value of the ACC isn’t a bad play. Not talking about a merger here. That would require the ACC’s grant of rights to be unwound and free some restless members. I’m talking about some creative early-season football and men’s basketball games and seeded crossover games during championship-game week in Las Vegas. Also, ESPN could combine the ACC Network with the Pac-12 Networks to generate a pile of fresh content for ESPN+. It makes sense for all parties and adds some value to what the Pac-12 is shopping.
• Expansion is still out there, too. San Diego State is interesting because it brings 1.1 million TV households in Southern California. Also, it would allow the conference to play some “home” games in Los Angeles at SoFi Stadium, potentially. I think SMU is a potential No. 2 target, if the conference expands. I also think Houston is interesting, depending on whether it can wiggle out of its Big 12 commitment.
After that, Fresno State, UNLV and Boise State have some selling points. However, I expect the presidents and chancellors of the conference won’t make an expansion move unless it’s a no-brainer. They’re not risk takers. Beyond San Diego State, I’m having a difficult time finding a great fit. I wonder if the better short-term plan is to try and retain UCLA and pair it with San Diego State. It’s a long, long shot. I don’t expect it to happen. But it’s absolutely what I’d try before moving on.
I’ll have more as this develops.
I know he says it’s a long, long shot but UCLA is gone. They need to move on. I really haven’t seen much to suggest adding SDSU makes sense unless they take a partial share. The new P12 deal will be small enough without diluting with G5 schools.
LikeLike
“San Diego State is interesting because it brings 1.1 million TV households in Southern California.”
There might be that many TV sets in San Diego but SDS home attendance last year averaged 10,600.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_San_Diego_State_Aztecs_football_team
LikeLike
Colin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_Stadium
SDSU was building a new stadium the last few years. It opens this year, with 35,000 capacity expandable to 55,000. They were playing in a much smaller place off campus since this new stadium was built where their old one was.
LikeLike
The 2019 season is the most recent normal attendance season, so I’ve been using those numbers. SDSU averaged 29,896 that year.
Click to access 2019.pdf
LikeLike
Yes, but they pulled 13,445 for the MW championship game that was held at SDSU (peak home attendance). I wonder if those numbers include student or other heavily discounted tickets?
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignity_Health_Sports_Park
They were playing at Cal State-Dominguez Hills (Carson, CA), which is in LA (over 100 miles away). The capacity was only 27,000.
LikeLike
John Canzano lashes out at internet reporting on the P12, especially Jason Scheer from Arizona’s 247 site.
Am I the only one who’s been wondering why Scheer’s reporting has a huge affinity for the Big 12?
LikeLike
He has a big affinity for UA going to the B12, I don’t know why. And since he runs the 247 site, he can write what he wants.
I’ve seen him complain about the night games, both as a fan and a “journalist.” I just don’t get the anger about an 8pm kickoff. Everyone in the east accepts them and many love them. I saw him complain about UZ having 3 already scheduled. It’s 120 degrees during the day – do you want afternoon games then?
LikeLike
Maybe he favors the B12 because AZ is just a half-step better than OrSt and WaSt. If there is another raid by the B1G than ASU covers the same territory and is a better choice. That could leave AZ in the Mountain West. Or maybe just to get clicks since it looks like the B1G is not very interested in the remaining PAC schools.
LikeLike
Until ASU gains AAU status, the B1G will prefer UA.
LikeLike
If this NBC report is true, it’s a gamechanger. Having FOX, CBS, and NBC building their CFB coverage around the BIG TEN with a FOX game at noon, a CBS game at 4, and an NBC game at 8 (constituting the biggest trio of games each week) is a grand slam. The big question is ND’s involvement in all this. It’ll be fascinating to find out.
LikeLike
There have been rumors about this triple-header scheme for months. John Ourand from SBJ brought it up a while ago as an option.
The SEC will have its own tripleheader, all on ABC/ESPN, so it’s at best a tie for the biggest trio of games. Still a great thing for the B10, though.
LikeLike
Brian – the SEC windows with ESPN/ABC will most likely be:
SEC#3 NOON ABC or ESPN splitting time with ACC #1 or #2
SEC#1 or #2 3:30p ABC
SEC#1 or #2 7p ABC (at least 75% of the time) & ESPN (25% of the time – saving some room for a random ACC#1 or best of the rest)
SEC#4 and SEC#5 at other times on ESPN or ESPN2, but not against the SEC#1 game.
Except for the 3:30p window that’s not written in stone, but from what I hear, this is what we should expect.
LikeLike
Does this assume no Big Ten on Disney networks?
LikeLike
Marc – I’m thinking that the B1G is not interested in sharing a spot on ABC with another conference if they are going to have some combination of B1G #1, #2 & #3 on FOX, CBS & NBC and competing against themselves and their best games. If I were FOX, NBC and CBS, I would prohibit the B1G from airing another game at the same time an an OTA network. So that would leave B1G #5 & #6 to air on ESPN & ESPN2. I’m just spit-balling and could be wrong, but I think that this makes sense.
LikeLike
Alan,
I agree, 3 OTA networks is basically the limit. The B10 doesn’t want to undercut its big games either. But that assumes that CBS and NBC both win packages, and that is far from certain.
I do think the B10 would still like to be affiliated with ESPN/2/U a bit. ESPNU could carry some of the OOC games like now, and ESPN/2 could have a noon B10 game when most others don’t want to play.
LikeLike
First, CFB is not the NFL. Explain to me how the NFL could play its schedule on one network and have every game televised while minimizing conflict between games? That is the most important reason that the NFL goes to multiple networks. The NFL has up to 15 games/week and lacks its own channel (i.e. – comparable to SEC Network or BTN). The SEC and BiG have up to 7, going on 8 (excluding OOC games, many of which are matchups not fit for broadcast).
Second, you keep chirping about ESPN all-sports, all the time. This is the ESPN that has NEVER carried an NFL game on a Sunday, and the ESPN that generally gets inferior Monday night games becasue they took MNF off of ABC. If you think that NFL fans are inclined to switch from Fox and CBS to watch postgame shows on ESPN, it stands to reason that CFB fans will do the same. And if ESPN won’t talk BiG football, I am sure another network will step in to fill the hole.
Third, ESPN gets paid more from the cable/satellite/live streaming ecosystem than do the broadcast networks. So ESPN will be hurt more by the move to streaming. Moreover, if not everyone in the household is into sports or wants to watch sports all the time, a broadcast network with diversified programming will be much more appealing.
I don’t have cable anymore, so I don’t know for sure, but I think one must pay an extra $15-$20 right now to get ALL of the “local” channels with all of the broadcast networks. That compares to $65 for YouTube TV (which is portable) to get ESPN and the locals, and probably >$100 for cable TV (depends on how many TVs, set-tops, etc.). And it would not be surprising if Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple eventually each bought a broadcast network. The problem for the BiG, given the politics of the respective companies, is that Fox’s brand would be hard for Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple to stomach. Still, ESPN has a bigger long-term strategic problem than the broadcast networks. I imagine that an acquirer could just change Fox’s politics (but at significant cost to themselves). So, the BiG is already in a much better place than the SEC when it comes to TV.
LikeLike
I’m restating what’s already been mentioned in here, but the ESPN exposure problem is likely a primary reason the B10 was so adamant that the CFP made it to open market.
Given the uphill battle non-SEC conferences already face in terms of perception, it would be an issue if the B10 was on every other network than the one that controls the narrative around the CFP. But if ESPN doesn’t have complete control over the CFP that could be beneficial, and a strategy of ignoring ESPN could be a little more reasonable.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“First, CFB is not the NFL.”
Of course it isn’t.
“Explain to me how the NFL could play its schedule on one network and have every game televised while minimizing conflict between games? That is the most important reason that the NFL goes to multiple networks. The NFL has up to 15 games/week and lacks its own channel (i.e. – comparable to SEC Network or BTN). The SEC and BiG have up to 7, going on 8 (excluding OOC games, many of which are matchups not fit for broadcast).”
The NFL could play a bunch of games all at the same time and air them regionally. Oh wait, they do that already. The NFL most definitely has its own eponymous channel.
The B10 will have up to 16 games in September, then 6-8 during the season. Having only 1 day to play them, and only 3 TV windows makes it hard to fit on 1 network.
“Second, you keep chirping about ESPN all-sports, all the time. This is the ESPN that has NEVER carried an NFL game on a Sunday, and the ESPN that generally gets inferior Monday night games becasue they took MNF off of ABC.”
Because ESPN has never offered enough money to get Sunday games. The NFL wanted so much for the package, ESPN needed the subscriber revenue to justify the cost. They lose a few viewers but make more money.
“If you think that NFL fans are inclined to switch from Fox and CBS to watch postgame shows on ESPN, it stands to reason that CFB fans will do the same.”
No, it’s not the pre-game and post-game. It’s the daily coverage on all their shows (SportsCenter, NFL Live, the gambling ones, the talking heads, …). ESPN talks the NFL 7 days a week. And they have a website people actually use that has multiple articles on the NFL every day. It’s an entire ecosystem.
“And if ESPN won’t talk BiG football, I am sure another network will step in to fill the hole.”
ESPN has more sports reach than anyone. FS1 is a distant second. Look what happened to the NHL when they moved to NBC – ESPN literally dropped all mention of the NHL except for a quick mention of scores during SportsCenter. The NHL came crawling back to them.
“Third, ESPN gets paid more from the cable/satellite/live streaming ecosystem than do the broadcast networks. So ESPN will be hurt more by the move to streaming.”
So? They keep raising their subscriber fee and making hundreds of millions from it every month. Plus all the ad fees. Plus they now make tens of millions from streaming, which will grow.
“Moreover, if not everyone in the household is into sports or wants to watch sports all the time, a broadcast network with diversified programming will be much more appealing.”
Yes, that’s why there aren’t as many pure-sports channels. But channels generally come in bundles, whether in cable or in streaming (Disney+).
“I don’t have cable anymore, so I don’t know for sure, but I think one must pay an extra $15-$20 right now to get ALL of the “local” channels with all of the broadcast networks.”
Yes, it’s an included cost. Guess what? Streaming prices are doing nothing but climbing as well. If you don’t like it, cut the cord and use an antenna.
“That compares to $65 for YouTube TV (which is portable) to get ESPN and the locals, and probably >$100 for cable TV (depends on how many TVs, set-tops, etc.).”
You’re just making up numbers. What’s the point of that?
“And it would not be surprising if Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple eventually each bought a broadcast network.”
Or if they burned the world to the ground and replaced people with robots. So what? Big companies own networks now, even bigger ones might in the future.
“The problem for the BiG, given the politics of the respective companies, is that Fox’s brand would be hard for Alphabet, Amazon, and Apple to stomach.”
Then don’t buy Fox. Someone else will, and make more profit. As if those companies have any actual principles beyond making money.
“Still, ESPN has a bigger long-term strategic problem than the broadcast networks.”
Yes, being owned by Disney is a terrible problem for them.
“I imagine that an acquirer could just change Fox’s politics (but at significant cost to themselves).”
What would be the point? Just buy NBC instead.
“So, the BiG is already in a much better place than the SEC when it comes to TV.”
I’m pretty sure ESPN will survive to see the end of their TV deal with the SEC, which is all the SEC really cares about.
LikeLike
A few things to note about ESPN and the NFL:
ESPN had the Sunday Night Football package for many years before it took Monday Night Football. Now, SNF at the time had worse games compared to MNF, which is something that the NFL wanted to change by switching SNF to OTA. ABC didn’t want to bid on the package at the time because it wanted to protect its then strong Sunday night prime time lineup of Desperate Housewives and Grey’s Anatomy. (They’d deeply regret that decision within a few years and have regretted ever since.) NBC paid for SNF while ESPN took MNF so that Disney could still have a relationship with the NFL at some level.
What’s very important to note is that it wasn’t because ESPN was willing to pay the requisite rights fees for SNF. In fact, ESPN was paying around *twice* as much for the MNF package as NBC was paying for the SNF package up until the new NFL TV contract that was signed last year. Even under the new NFL TV contracts, ESPN is paying 35% more for MNF than what CBS, FOX and NBC are paying for their respective packages.
People can critique ESPN on a lot of fronts, but they are far from cheap when it comes to paying for a property that they deem to be critical.
FWIW, I would still wager heavily that the Big Ten will retain a presence on ABC/ESPN even if it’s reduced compared to the current package. It’s not so much ABC/ESPN as much as keeping a place in the broader Disney ecosystem. That’s the only legacy entertainment company (not counting Amazon, Netflix or Apple) that has a streaming strategy that I trust will still be around for the whole length of a 5 or 6 year contract. I don’t have the same faith in Paramount+ or Peacock and those platforms are absolutely going to be a part of any CBS or NBC bid, respectively.
Heck, Disney is the only entertainment company that I feel confident that it won’t be bought by a larger company by the end of the next Big Ten TV contract. I actually think that’s quite important for the long-term to keep that relationship going (just as the NFL did when MNF initially moved to ESPN). Disney isn’t going anywhere and they’re a uniquely important company in the global cultural landscape.
LikeLike
Ugh – iPhone autocorrect reared its ugly head in my last comment. Meant to say the following in the 3rd paragraph: “What’s very important to note is that it wasn’t because ESPN wasn’t willing to pay the requisite rights fees for SNF.”
LikeLike
I think the Big 10 prefers to be on ABC/ESPN. And ABC definitely wants the Big 10.
I expect the mouse to pay well enough to be in the mix.
LikeLike
bullet,
Yes, without a doubt the B10 wants to have at least a few games on ABC/ESPN. Realistically one of the OTA networks is out, since they’d all want an exclusive OTA window. So of CBS and NBC due get their packages, it would have to be ESPN/2.
LikeLike
Frank,
I’ll take you word for all the NFL stuff. I pay no attention to it. I wasn’t trying to say they were cheap, just that they made a financial decision of whether it was worth X to them.
I think it’s really hard to compare the value of the different NFL packages as the time slots are so different, and the NFL schedule varies. I’m sure ESPN has to pay a little extra for not being ABC showing the games.
You see Disney’s streaming as a plus, but I don’t. First, I won’t believe that the B10 is putting exclusive games on Paramount+ and Peacock Premium at this point until I see the proof. Co-streaming? Replays? Shoulder programming? Sure. But those services are too small to waste a game on. CBS needs games to replace the SEC a lot more than Paramount+ needs exclusive games. NBC wants more games to surround ND – Peacock Premium doesn’t accomplish that. Even free Peacock doesn’t. I need to see proof that they are paying this kind of money for those streaming services. If the B10 does do this, they’ll be killing BTN to help build streaming services they don’t own a share in. It’s bad business.
Personally, I’d rather have the streaming service fail mid-contract and put the games back on TV. But more likely, any “failing” streaming service will just get bought/merged/bundled/whatever so it doesn’t really go away.
I think your faith in Disney is too strong. Any of the big new tech companies could buy them out of petty cash. Disney’s stock is down 37% in the past year. It’s DTC segment lost about $890M in Q2 (up from -$290M in Q2 2021). I know, the model for streaming is to lose a lot up front. But people were disappointed in Disney’s performance. They will rise again, as always, but maybe never to the same heights (or maybe higher). When they wear out the Marvel and Star Wars franchises, they’ll have no live action movies left.
I agree they won’t be bought during this next deal, but in part that’s because this deal will be short. The B10 is working from 2036 as a target date. That means they probably want to add new members from the ACC around 2033-34 (too early is just awkward with that GOR). So the B10’s deal probably should end around 2034-36. But that’s 10-12 years, and TV is changing too fast for that. The experts have predicted the P12 will sign a short deal (4-6 years), and I’m expecting the B10 to sign a 4-6 year deal this time, and then another one. That will be 2 more bumps in rights before the ACC GOR ends.
The key is trying to find the sweet spot, because everyone else will base their end dates on the B10 and 2036.
LikeLike
It sounds about right. Fox likes to put their big game at noon, CBS and ABC can fight at 3:30, then ABC and NBC can fight in primetime, with Fox sometimes in the mix.
LikeLike
3 OTA carriers all with exclusive ETA windows is doable (the Fox at noon, CBS at 3:30, NBC prime time plan being bandied about). I don’t think it’s likely but it’s doable.
Say half 1st/half second choice is worth $300mm (13 games each) (2 tier 1 packages)
Half third/half 4th choice worth $100mm.
(13 games each) (2 tier 2 packages)
Basketball and 6-8 left-over football games (non-OTA) worth $300mm (total)
$150mm for the CCG and first pick of games.
Fox pays $600mm for the first tier 1 package, half basketball, CCG and first pick.
NBC and CBS pay $200 each for half tier1, half tier 2 (getting the #1-#4 picks a quarter of the time each).
Amazon overpays by $50mm for a tier 2 package = $150mm
ESPN pays $150mm for half basketball and some leftover games.
LikeLike
Comment on the incredible stupidity of bloggers on YouTube. Yes, this is news to no one. I get it. I was on YouTube and saw a link to a video by a UWVa blogger entitled what should “West Virginia do now”. I was amused and decided to see what brilliance would be forthcoming. To reach it, I had to go to the West Virginia sports section of YouTube.
First this guy seems to think that Kansas is one of most valuable properties in college sports, even if the football is not great. Kansas being in the Big12 is one of his reasons why the conference is so valuable. Both the B1G and the SEC would grab Kansas right now if it was available, or so he says.
He also suggested that perhaps the PAC or Big12 should go after Notre Dame right now. He was not sure that they could get ND, but it was worth a try. At that point I gave up, but it simply more evidence that whatever type of dopey info is desired, it is out there.
LikeLike
Comment on the incredible stupidity of bloggers on YouTube. Yes, this is news to no one.
If you haven’t already, avoid Twitter. Its much worse.
LikeLike
Wilner reporting that the ESPN/FOX exclusivity window is extended.
t’s the 30th day (presumably) of the Pac-12’s exclusive window with ESPN and Fox, and the Big Ten is still immersed in negotiations with the same networks.
Our guess?
Either ESPN and Fox have asked the Pac-12 to extend the exclusive window, the Pac-12 asked its partners to extend the exclusive window, or both sides reached that conclusion independently.
After all, the Pac-12 would want to know which networks grabbed a piece of the Big Ten’s media rights and which did not.
And ESPN and Fox would want to know exactly what they’re spending on the Big Ten.
Exactly how long an extension might last, we cannot speculate.
LikeLike
I don’t see the upside for the P12 in extending the window unless the other networks also said they needed to see what happens with the P12 first. If everyone is involved in the B10 negotiations except Apple, maybe there’s no point. But everyone can come back with offers later, so I still don’t see the advantage.
LikeLike
That isn’t what he said. He said he hadn’t heard it expired, so he assumed it was extended. Really, really stupid take by Wilner. Pac has no reason to extend it. They can keep talking to ESPN.
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/big-ten-media-rights-1-5-b/
Before USC and UCLA announced they would join the Big Ten in 2024, the conference was already on track to garner up to $1 billion annually in its new media rights deal. But after the addition, media partners were told to “go back to the drawing board,” Front Office Sports previously reported.
Now, the Big Ten hopes to kick that number up by 50% to at least $1.5 billion annually, sources told Front Office Sports.
…
That number also suggests USC and UCLA alone could have boosted the conference’s annual rights value by $500 million. The addition of the two mega-schools gives the Big Ten access to the Los Angeles TV market, the second-largest in the country behind New York.
…
The Big Ten told FOS that it “is grateful for the quality and quantity of potential media partners. At this time, it would be inappropriate to speculate during ongoing negotiations.”
…
* While it can’t offer the cash of its competitors, NBC is offering to make the Big Ten the “NFL” of college football by creating a complement to “Sunday Night Football” with Saturday night prime-time Big Ten matchups.
Meanwhile, there’s growing frustration over the role of Fox Sports in the Big Ten media rights negotiations. Fox is the conference’s primary TV partner and part-owner of the Big Ten Network. Fox executives are directly involved in the negotiations.
Rival sports TV executives from the likes of NBC, ESPN, and CBS are uncomfortable submitting financial bids and sharing information in front of rival sports TV executives.
“So who do you think is going to get the best game matchups? Fox,” said one source. “Bottom line, Fox is watching out for Fox, not the Big Ten.”
$1.5B? That’s $93.75M per schools. I doubt the B10 gets that.
I take that NBC bit about not having the money its competitors do to be directed against Amazon. They’re playing up the exposure they can offer instead.
LikeLike
Also, I agree that having Fox in all the negotiations is odd. It’s one thing for them to be a sounding board and to represent BTN’s interests, but the other networks shouldn’t have to share every detail with them up front.
It would be like ESPN insisting the SEC sits in on any discussions with the B10.
LikeLike
Having Fox in all the B1G negotiations is indeed somewhat odd but I’m not sure it’s counterproductive. Rather than belabored back and forth negotiations, to include Oks from Big Ten presidents, we have a Fox guy sitting at the table who cuts to the quick: “No. No. We can’t do that. No. OK, but only if ESPN does this.”
LikeLike
For every other league, that “guy at the table” is a media consultant who is not advising while also bidding on the deal himself. Amazing that the Big Ten agreed to that. One would almost think John Swofford was behind it.
LikeLike
I agree it could speed some things up, but it’s really none of Fox’s business how much each network offers the B10 for a given package unless Fox is counterbidding. They do need to know any requests about order of picks, or total games (impacts BTN), or things like that. But I think the others would prefer to keep some of the financial and strategy details private.
LikeLike
A huge number like that makes further expansion even less likely without partial shares.
LikeLike
Take this FWIW, but “hopes” is key here.
https://frontofficesports.com/big-ten-media-rights-1-5-b/
Before USC and UCLA announced they would join the Big Ten in 2024, the conference was already on track to garner up to $1 billion annually in its new media rights deal. But after the addition, media partners were told to “go back to the drawing board,” Front Office Sports previously reported.
Now, the Big Ten hopes to kick that number up by 50% to at least $1.5 billion annually, sources told Front Office Sports.
LikeLike
https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/days-of-our-lives-peacock-1235332767/
NBC takes a bold step to bolster Peacock – moving Days of Our Lives to streaming and replacing it with a news show on NBC.
The long-running NBC soap opera is officially moving to the NBCUniversal-owned streaming platform starting on Sept. 12. It has aired on NBC since it first launched in 1965.
Currently, the show airs daily on NBC while past episodes are available to stream on Peacock. Peacock previously aired the spinoff “Days of Our Lives: Beyond Salem” in September 2021, with a second installment of that series having aired on Peacock in July. The spinoff film ” Days of Our Lives: A Very Salem Christmas” aired in December 2021.
Also beginning Sept. 12, in the timeslots previously occupied by “Days of Our Lives,” “NBC News Daily” will debut across NBC stations. The hourlong program is anchored by NBC News’ team including Kate Snow, Aaron Gilchrist, Vicky Nguyen and Morgan Radford. It will also be streamed simultaneously on NBC News NOW and Peacock.
“This programming shift benefits both Peacock and NBC and is reflective of our broader strategy to utilize our portfolio to maximize reach and strengthen engagement with viewers,” said Mark Lazarus, chairman of NBCUniversal Television and Streaming. “With a large percentage of the ‘Days of Our Lives’ audience already watching digitally, this move enables us to build the show’s loyal fanbase on streaming while simultaneously bolstering the network daytime offering with an urgent, live programming opportunity for partners and consumers.”
LikeLike
While adding USC and UCLA as schools was a very big deal, I assume that there is something about now being in the four largest TV markets in the country which may also be working some magic. Plus the DC market at number 7.
If Penn State did not already control the Philly market, south Jersey is also in that market.
That does set up a the geographic logic behind a college version of NFL broadcasts, and higher TV values.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though unrelated, having Fox sitting in the same room as their ‘client’ reminds me of the conflict-of-interest issues the company I work for faced regarding packaging. The WGA (Writers Guild of America), forced us to sell our content arm because we were, in some cases, representing talent that was also staring in shows we were producing. Now that it’s been reported Endeavor is exploring a WWE bid, the WGA wants to know just HOW scripted that sport is.😂 Point being, It is kind of odd the B1G would allow Fox to oversee the preceedings. It has a Stockholm vibe. Maybe the B1G is the Manchurian Conference! -Sankey you sneaky devil.
LikeLike
FOX is not sitting in. The Big 10 Network is an entirely separate entity from FOX. The BTN’s Executive Management team all have media backgrounds. (DUH) The Executive Management Team’s one and only mission is to maximize profits for the BTN. Be it through CBS, NBC, FOX or any one else. The BTN’s Board of Directors will not look favorably on a member of the Management team sharing CBS info with FOX. That would result in immediate dismissal and most likely legal action. YES FOX owns stock in the BTN but they are not the BTN.
LikeLike
Okay, so why is BTN negotiating on behalf of the Big Ten? Clearly the B1G prefers it this way, but you can understand why the other media companies would find it off-puttung. I assume it has something to do with them believing Mark Silverman has their best interest at heart (in between going to Dodgers games with Colin Cowherd), and I guess if they pull in 1.5B, it will have succeeded.
LikeLike
Doug,
The reporting says Fox is sitting in. From back in April:
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/04/18/Insiders/Sports-media.aspx
A curious situation has been afoot during Big Ten media rights negotiations this year that has caused a lot of head scratching by TV network and digital executives.
Two senior Fox Sports executives — Mark Silverman and Larry Jones — are taking active roles during the conference’s media rights negotiations.
That means Silverman, Fox Sports president and COO, and Jones, Fox Sports executive vice president of business, have been in the room and listening intently as executives from rival companies — Amazon, Apple, CBS, ESPN, NBC and Turner — make their pitches for the conference’s rights packages.
Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren leads these meetings, of course. He has run the conference for three years and has final say on which company ends up with the rights. Kerry Kenny, the conference’s senior vice president of television, media, analytics and emerging platforms, also plays a big role during each of these meetings.
Executives say they’ve never encountered this type of situation before where they have had to make their pitch not only in front of a competitive network, but actually to its executives.
It’s all on the up-and-up, even if the situation is unusual. Sources say Fox Sports already has a deal in place to renew its Big Ten pact, so it’s not as though Silverman and Jones are gaining trade secrets as a way to enhance their own bid.
The presence of Silverman and Jones in these negotiations is part of a deal Fox Sports cut with the Big Ten when the previous rights agreements were signed in 2017.
The earlier deal gave Big Ten Network control of the media rights to the Big Ten conference for an undetermined period of time. Silverman, who ran Big Ten Network back in 2017, was part of the negotiations with ESPN as a BTN rep back then.
This year, Silverman and Jones are taking part in these talks as designated representatives of BTN, the channel in which Fox Sports is a majority owner and the entity that controls the Big Ten rights.
Essentially, the two Fox Sports executives are acting as both designated BTN representatives and media consultants, which is one reason why the Big Ten did not hire a media consultant to help it through these negotiations.
For months, one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the Big Ten’s negotiations has been about who Warren was using as a consultant. There hasn’t been a clear answer. The idea that it’s two well-established network executives certainly comes as a surprise.
So while they are there to represent BTN and serve as “outside” media consultants, it is Fox in the room.
LikeLike
So BTN does control their media rights. Wow. No wonder Silverman shot up the ranks.
LikeLike
It has been reported by multiple outlets that FOX Sports president Mark Silverman and Executive VP Larry Jones are present at all discussions and negotiations with the other Big Ten bidders. Silverman himself effectively confirmed it in his quotes at last week’s Big Ten media days in saying that the league’s deals would be completed in the next few weeks and referred to speaking with the executives of the other networks and even saying “we” are getting the best deals in place as if FOX and the Big Ten were one and the same.
Needless to say, I could understand if the other networks are miffed. If Disney/ESPN were sitting in on any network negotiations for the SEC, ACC or any other conference, the conspiracy theories would be running wild. It’s really strange that the Big Ten thought that this was good idea. The league ought to want FOX to have no knowledge at all about the other network bids in order to maximize what they could get from FOX itself.
LikeLike
Delaney negotiated that provision granting all Big Ten media rights to the BTN (presumably through 2033 though it’s an open question of when that grant expires).
And FOX has majority control of BTN, so it’s impossible to avoid this reality with Silverman and co. sitting in negotiating on behalf of BTN/Big Ten.
LikeLike
I would presume that FOX basically told the Big Ten as part of that deal that they would be the main media partner for the remainder of the deal and pay the biggest share as a result.
I can’t blame Delaney for taking that deal, FOX came through in 2017 and appears to have come through again.
And they also bought an extra 10% in FY 2020 to help prevent a big dip in Big Ten revenues in the Covid year.
LikeLike
z33k,
I would presume that FOX basically told the Big Ten as part of that deal that they would be the main media partner for the remainder of the deal and pay the biggest share as a result.
But how does that work in detail?
Fox has been getting 24-27 B10 games, with ESPN getting 27, and BTN getting about 44. But with expansion, the B10 will have more like 112 games than 98. Where do those extra 14 games go? Does BTN stick around 44? Does Fox want to go up to around 34 games? They’ll be losing P12 games and the B12 will be less valuable once OU and UT leave, so maybe.
So what did Fox agree to? The same sort of split (45% BTN, 27% Fox, 28% other), with $X per game from Fox? Both sides agreed Fox hadn’t nailed down how many games, how many 1st picks they’d get, etc. It seems really tough to nail down the financials that way.
And they also bought an extra 10% in FY 2020 to help prevent a big dip in Big Ten revenues in the Covid year.
I read somewhere that there was a provision for that in the contract. Whether the B10 could force Fox to buy 10% or it was just a choice I don’t know. I also don’t know if the B10 also had the choice to buy another 10%.
I’m curious to know if the B10 will ever buy back that 10% with this expansion. After paying off COVID debts, they will soon have a lot of extra money available. Might Fox “pay” them in 1% of BTN a year for a decade in addition to cash?
LikeLike
Brian: “I’m curious to know if the B10 will ever buy back that 10% with this expansion. After paying off COVID debts, they will soon have a lot of extra money available. Might Fox “pay” them in 1% of BTN a year for a decade in addition to cash?”
I hope so. Part of the reason BTN exists is because the B10 wanted control. Fox has to this point been a good business partner, but I don’t love the idea of Fox having majority control forever.
LikeLike
The conference gave up control of BTN a long time ago. Maybe 10 years now. Dropping their interest from 49% to 39% has little impact on the conference other than profit distributions and that was probably on the decline anyway as BTN carriage has dropped from 60million households to 49million. The conference still gets media rights for BTN from Fox through the end of the contract which is in 10-12 years.
LikeLike
Kevin,
The conference gave up control of BTN a long time ago. Maybe 10 years now. Dropping their interest from 49% to 39% has little impact on the conference other than profit distributions and that was probably on the decline anyway as BTN carriage has dropped from 60million households to 49million. The conference still gets media rights for BTN from Fox through the end of the contract which is in 10-12 years.
Going to 49% is a lot different than 39%, especially as growth has diluted each share anyway.
BTN pays a rights fee, plus the B10 gets a share of ad revenue and profits. With the latest additions, BTN subscriptions will be going back up. Plus they make money from streaming. And all of that is greatly reduced by having 16 schools split 39% vs 11 schools splitting 49%.
The current BTN deal ends in 2032. The B10 might want to change their stake in it by then.
LikeLike
Brian, from Extrapoints, apparently it was a clause allowing the Big Ten to choose when/whether to sell the 10% in a 5 year window:
“Sources at both Big Ten institutions and Fox confirmed to Extra Points that the Big Ten presidents and chancellors exercised a put clause in year four of a five-year time frame that was part of their original contract with Fox and allowed the league to sell part of its interest back to their network partner.”
It’s important to remember that the current BTN joint venture expires in 2033.
Thus, the current 61-39 owned joint ventures contract is in place through 2033.
Naturally, we would expect the BTN contract to be renewed, but the structure may revert back to 51-49 or the Big Ten will possibly take something like more guaranteed payments in exchange for the decreased profit sharing leaving it at 61-39.
I don’t think Big Ten is too worried about it either way.
FOX bought 10% to get that extra 10% profit from 2020 through 2033. The Big Ten took $100 million in cash to cover for the Covid revenue shortfall.
Probably wasn’t an unfair deal since we’re talking about something like FOX getting an extra $10-15 million a year for 13 years.
LikeLike
Important to remember that the profit for BTN is calculated after Big Ten gets its guaranteed cuts of revenue.
The profit % isn’t as big a deal due to that.
Big Ten gets around $150 million from BTN before profit is calculated.
LikeLike
@ Brian
I would disagree about the “big” difference between 39% and 49%. I’ve been a valuation specialist by profession for over 20 years and routinely value closely held minority interests. I would encourage you to read through the conference’s 990 tax form. The distributions from the Big Ten Network Holdings LLC are not that significant. Now they may have legal language in their bylaws that allow the conference to have significant input on BTN content etc.. but they do not have voting control of the joint venture. 10% of the profits are likely not that significant since there is already a rights fee included in the cost structure of the entity. The leagues total investment income was around $48m in 2020. That would also include other investment income beyond BTN.
LikeLike
Kevin: “I would disagree about the “big” difference between 39% and 49%.”
I agree. It would be a bigger difference if the BTN were to allow beer commercials. Many of the schools allow beer sales at football games right now.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I guess it all depends on how you define a big deal. We know that 10% was worth $100M. That’s still a pretty big deal to me, along with everything else that goes with that 10%.
LikeLike
@Brian
I’m pretty sure the rights fee from BTN was just the original base guarantee on an annual schedule and eventually switched to a % of sub fees/ad revenue over time when that number surpassed the base.
But don’t quote me on that.
Big Ten should be getting around half of the sub fees at this point.
So Big Ten will benefit from additions of USC/UCLA directly as the LA sub numbers + fees goes up.
Selling 10% to FOX at what appears to be fair value isn’t that big a deal.
Especially since it just shifts 10% profit to FOX over a 12 year time frame before the contract is renegotiated.
LikeLike
Brian, I don’t think you have to worry about those extra games being soaked up. Between Fox/CBS/NBC/Amazon/ESPN, not having enough games to go around will probably be more of a problem.
LikeLike
Richard,
Brian, I don’t think you have to worry about those extra games being soaked up. Between Fox/CBS/NBC/Amazon/ESPN, not having enough games to go around will probably be more of a problem.
I’m not worried that someone will air them (or they’ll be relegated to the black hole of streaming). I am wondering who can air them (has the space), and how many each network might be looking for. How many games does Fox want for Fox and FS1? For BTN? They’re losing P12 games, so are they looking to replace all of that with the B10?
But in that comment, I was wondering how Fox and the B10 agreed to a deal with none of the parameters known. Did they agree to a certain number of games, or a percentage of total games, or what? Did they do the same for BTN? How did they agree to a price? Did they agree to a certain surcharge for 1st pick? What if other networks wanted different options than what Fox had planned for them getting? It seems rather complex on the surface.
The B10 expanded after the deal was finished. I’m sure Fox was consulted along the way, but how did that factor into the deal? It’s one thing to adjust the overall value if USC and UCLA join, but it would seem to have a lot of detailed impacts as well.
LikeLike
Professional negligence or 4D chess? …Only Delany knows! 😁
LikeLike
If the Big Ten sees $1.5 billion a year from TV, the results speak for themselves.
Delany basically made the Big Ten an essential part of FOX’s business, as important as their Sunday NFL package (even if not at that same heft).
The payouts are always gonna be where the rubber meets the road.
Even with the details not announced, the decision looks brilliant in retrospect.
LikeLike
Frank,
Ourand was careful to note that Fox had already submitted their bid before those 2 began to sit in on negotiations with others. ESPN must have known going in that Fox and the B10 had that in their existing contract. I’m surprised ESPN didn’t demand meetings without Fox, as the co-primary B10 rights holder. Maybe they did have that during the exclusive negotiating window, but then Fox got to sit in after that?
It’s weird, because you need someone from BTN to be present and Fox is the majority owner. They have a right to know how many games, and of what quality, BTN will get in the upcoming years.
What I’m curious about is how did Fox negotiate a deal with the B10 when they didn’t know how many games they’ll get or what picks? And then the B10 expanded, which changes almost everything. Inventory increases, the chance for late night games appears, the number of high-value games increases, etc.
I would’ve thought they needed some sort of Chinese wall to make this work, but that can’t happen with Silverman in the room. It’s just weird.
LikeLike
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karenweaver/2020/01/04/the-big-ten-network-was-created-by-and-for-its-fans—and-turned-a-profit-in-less-than-two-years/?sh=378e1baf7212
The B10 got a share of the ad revenue from day 1. It’s a separate bucket from the rights payout.
What many people don’t realize was that Delany made sure that the universities also earned 33% of all advertising revenues in addition to 51% of the revenues, including subscriber fees. Those advertising fees grew exponentially with the addition of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers for several years. Today, they have splintered across platforms and are harder to measure. Regardless, Delany recognized them as a valuable asset early in the process.
…
It’s important to note that Delany kept a close eye on the number of households at launch—if you hit 30 million, your advertising rates hit a higher benchmark. Within one year, BTN hit 60 million homes, allowing them to charge advertising rates equal to that of national networks.
…
I interviewed BTN president Mark Silverman in 2008, and here were his predictions for the network looking 10 years into the future—how many have come to fruition?
The future is online;
70% to 80% of video content will be produced on campus;
BTN will produce over 1,000 events each year.
…
Also in 2007, Fox agreed to pay each Big Ten school a $3 million signing bonus. This allowed schools to create mini-studios on their campuses, allowing for remote interviews and adding fiber lines. …
When asked in January 2020 where he thinks the media train is headed, Delany said this to CBS Sports’ Dennis Dodd: “It continues to evolve. We grew up in a black-and-white three-network (TV world), then 50 channels, now 500 channels. Apple is interesting. They’ve going to have a [platform] that doesn’t have a lot of content. They need some content. Everybody is sort of waiting to see if that occurs.”
LikeLike
Let’s look ahead to 2024, assuming no more expansion happens. How does the B10 accommodate USC/ND?
First let’s see how the P12 did it:
2022 USC:
Wk 1 – OOC
Wk 2 – @ Stanford
…
Wk 12 – @ UCLA
Wk 13 – ND
2021 USC:
Wk 1 – OOC
Wk 2 – Stanford
…
Wk 8 – @ ND
Wk 12 – UCLA
Wk 13 – BYU
Wk 14 – @ Cal (because Stanford hosts ND)
Normally, the B10 would put USC/UCLA in rivalry week and everything would be set. But USC/ND is more valuable, and will likely still be held the final week every other year.
Since the B10 doesn’t have a second ND game rivalry locked in every year, how do they handle this?
Options:
1. Work with the P12 to have Cal and UCLA fill that hole
2024:
last week – USC vs ND, UCLA @ Cal
earlier – Cal vs Stanford, USC vs UCLA, Stanford @ ND
2025:
last week – Stanford vs ND, USC vs UCLA
earlier – Cal @ Stanford, UCLA vs Cal, USC @ ND
Pros – keeps the in-state rivalry alive which keeps Newsom et al. happier
Cons – P12 might not feel like cooperating but Cal is available every other year
2. Ask USC to host ND earlier in the schedule (when someone can get a bye)
Pros – easier for the B10
Cons – TV doesn’t want it then, ND doesn’t have to agree
3. Have 1 B10 play OOC that week every other year, or give them a bye
Most B10 schools have a decent rival for the last week already. PSU, MSU, UMD, RU, and UCLA would seem like the only options to play OOC (I doubt the B10 would allow a bye the final week). Would the ACC free up Pitt? I doubt it. Could RU and Army (or a rotation with UConn, UMass, and Army vs RU or UMD) become an every other year series? UCLA, RU, or UMD could host a CUSA buy game that weekend I suppose.
I think the easiest answer lies in the P12.
With USC joining the B10, would ND consider moving that rivalry to the final week every week? It would help their TV deal too, and they could go to Stanford the penultimate week for a nice warmish game.
LikeLike
If the B10 stays at 16, I would personally set USC-UCLA as the Thanksgiving week game and tell ND to move the USC-ND game to the traditional rivalry week the week before.
But I doubt that happens.
And I really doubt the Pac helps out the B10 with any scheduling difficulties.
Most likely is that RU/UMD end the year against UConn/Army often. MSU and PSU alternate ending the year against UCLA (playing whichever one of RU/UMD doesn’t play OOC the other half of the time).
LikeLike
Throw UMass in there too.
Maybe RU could alternate UConn and UMass. ND visits CA every year. UConn and UMass could alternate visiting Jersey every year.
Another idea:
While ND ends the season in CA every year, PSU, MSU, RU, and UMD could end the season in balmy (UC)LA every 4 years.
The B10 would only get the ND-USC game every other year. In the other years, schedule PSU to visit LA and MSU to visit LA. Hmm. May want to have them face off against USC. Hmm, but PSU and MSU could end the year in CA like ND does too (half the time) .
LikeLike
In fact, the B10 could have PSU and MSU end their seasons in LA half the time and have OSU, UMich, UNL, and Wisconsin play in LA the weekend before Thanksgiving half the time (RU and UMD would also play at UCLA the last week of the season every 4 years).
That would take away from ND’s boast of ending the season CA somewhat.
If Miami and FSU are added, all 6 of the biggest (original) B10 brands could go to CA or FL in the last 2 weeks of the season every year.
LikeLike
I only considered the P12 helping because they face the same issue with Stanford in the other years, leaving Cal without a rival. And the P12 does want UCLA to keep playing Cal. This would elevate that game by being on rivalry week.
Anyway, it was just a thought.
LikeLike
Pac-12 will happily accommodate the BiG for $100 million per game. 😉
LikeLike
Check our sofa cushions.
But seriously, the P12 will face the same issue assuming ND extends its series with USC and Stanford. How do you think the P12 will handle it?
Will they just tell Cal to play OOC that week? If so, wouldn’t Cal/UCLA be an ideal OOC game for that week? It’s sort of a rivalry, and it’s an easy trip for both fan bases. And when it moves to October every other year, neither side would complain too much. It’s not like the P12 would be helping the B10, it would be helping itself/Cal out.
Would they ask someone else to play OOC instead? Almost everyone else has an obvious rival (UW/WSU, UO/OrSU, UA/ASU, CU/UU). Would they free up UU to play BYU? That only works if the B12 frees up BYU. CU playing CSU or AFA? The MWC would have to free them up.
Would they add SDSU as an 11th member , then deal with odd numbers all the other weeks? I doubt it, since that doesn’t work with 9 games.
Would they give someone a bye that week? I doubt it, as that could be a huge advantage in the CCG.
In the end, Cal/UCLA seems like the best solution available to the P12. It happens to also work for the B10, but I don’t think that will prevent it from happening. Especially since UCLA could then spin it publicly as they tried to play Cal, but Cal and the P12 refused. Newsom stressed the importance of keeping that game, and UCLA would take no blame for it in that case.
LikeLike
UCLA and Cal playing OOC doesn’t solve the issue because that still leaves a school in each league needing to schedule OOC the last week of the season every other year. ND doesn’t visit USC and Stanford the same year.
LikeLike
Richard,
UCLA and Cal playing OOC doesn’t solve the issue because that still leaves a school in each league needing to schedule OOC the last week of the season every other year. ND doesn’t visit USC and Stanford the same year.
Correct – I wasn’t thinking clearly. It helps a bit, but that’s all. Mostly it just keeps the rivalry alive.
2024:
Wk 7 – Stanford @ ND, Cal vs UCLA, USC on bye/OOC
Wk 13 – USC @ UCLA
Wk 14 – ND @ USC, Stanford vs Cal, UCLA vs UMD/RU, RU/UMND vs Army/UMass/UConn/CUSA
2025:
Wk 7 – USC @ ND, Cal vs UCLA, Stanford on bye/OOC
Wk 13 – Stanford vs Cal
Wk 14 – ND @ Stanford, USC vs UCLA, Cal vs Army/UMass/UConn
It’s still pretty ugly.
The easiest answer is to move the ND games from the last week to weeks where teams get byes (September through early November).
2024:
Wk 7 – Stanford @ ND, Cal vs UCLA, USC on bye/OOC
Wk 11 – ND @ USC, UCLA on bye/OOC
Wk 14 – USC @ UCLA, Stanford vs Cal
2025:
Wk 7 – USC @ ND, Cal vs UCLA, Stanford on bye/OOC
Wk 11 – ND @ Stanford, Cal on bye/OOC
Wk 14 – UCLA @ USC, Stanford vs Cal
LikeLike
I am a bit torn, but my guess is that it Notre Dame game does move up a week. I don’t see the conference going for someone having a bye that week and the PAC-12 solution would leave the PAC-12 in the same boat (since those would be the years Stanford is not playing Notre Dame last) and I don’t see them looking to help now.
I do think they’ll honor the games already on the book, but in those years (2 according to what I saw elsewhere), UCLA will have to make due.
LikeLike
Eric,
Moving ND up is the easiest thing for the two conferences. Of course, ND has to agree but the B10 has the power to control USC’s schedule.
The ND/USC series is scheduled through 2026, and ND/Stanford through 2024. So Stanford and the P12 won’t have an issue unless they renew that series, in which case they can plan for it. The USC game is an issue in 2024 and 2026 for now.
For 2 games, there are easy workarounds. UCLA could play UMD while RU plays UConn/UMass/Army, for example. I know the USC/ND series will continue after 2026, I just hope they agree to play earlier in the season. There just isn’t another clean solution.
They could even discuss shuffling the 2 scheduled games around. In 2024, ND has no games on 9/28 or 10/5 yet with USC set for 11/26, 1 games date TBA and 1 game unknown. In 2026, ND only has 5 games scheduled with 5 others on dates TBA plus 2 teams not even known yet.
LikeLike
Cal refuses to play Stanford on Thanksgiving weekend. That is why Cal always has a problem scheduling the last week. Unless the Big Game moves to Thanksgiving weekend, I don’t see how ND can maintain its game with Stanford – unless they move it to early season, which would defeat the purpose from ND’s perspective.
LikeLike
I’m guessing ND, the P12 and the B10 will have to sit down and hash out a plan. ND may have to give on this one, or may maybe Cal and Stanford do.
LikeLike
https://footballscoop.com/news/where-things-stand-with-big-ten-expansion
A good summary of where things stand with CFB realignment, with a little humor.
[summary of B10 stuff]
And so the focus now moves to the Pac-10. The conference is actually in its exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and Fox right now. However, industry insiders believe the conference is in a holding pattern to see what network inventory is left over after the Big Ten has eaten to its satisfaction. If ESPN does not pick up Big Ten rights, the Pac-10 is likely fine, with Pac-10 After Dark becoming the lifeboat that keeps the conference afloat. If the Big Ten manages to strike a deal with NBC, CBS and ESPN, that’d be bad news in the Pac-10’s remote headquarters.
As a result, things have become contentious between the Pac-10 and Big 12.
[here were some tweets of P12 vs B12 about attendance]
Rather than join forces as a 24-team entity with teams in all four time zones, the conferences have done the typical college sports thing and opted to fight to the death to be FBS’s distant No. 3 league behind the SEC and Big Ten.
LikeLike
I have read a lot of commentary about Big 12 v PAC and there really does seem to be bitterness, beyond competition. Of course there is also an element of each league thinking that it is far superior to the other.
I wonder if some of the tensions comes from last year. Did at least some of the PAC 12 vote against raiding the Big 12 so that they would not destroy the league? Of course, there was no PAC dream (nightmare) of losing USC/UCLA.
If there was some type of “compassion” by PAC 12 members, that would explain the extreme bitterness at the Big 12 for really trying to sink the remainder of the PAC by perhaps taking the four corners.
LikeLike
Like the B10, the PAC believe that the academic standards of the B12 are beneath them. So not considering any B12 teams was more of an insult than compassion. If any of the schools really moved the needle on the $$$ the PAC would have made an exception like the B10 for Notre Dame. However, that was not the case. In 1978 the PAC offered AZ (AAU) as an expansion but were required to take ASU as well. That is the only non-AAU PAC expansion although OrSt and WaSt are also non-AAU.
LikeLike
Did at least some of the PAC 12 vote against raiding the Big 12 so that they would not destroy the league?
I am not aware of a single case where a league voted against a financially compelling expansion, because they wanted to ensure another league would survive.
LikeLike
Apologies if this proposal has been previously mentioned by someone else, but there is an approach to Big Ten football scheduling that minimizes travel, maintains all important rivalries without resorting to awkward “locked games”, allows each school to play all others over a four-year period, and produces relatively “fair” schedules for all.
Maintain the basic division format but move Purdue to the East. Divide each division into four two-team groups, each group consisting of an historically “tougher” and an “easier” team. The schedule is seven division games and the out-of-division games are with one of the groups.
For example, divide the teams into the following groups: OSU/RU, MI/MD, PSU/IN, MSU/PU and USC/IL, WI/NW, UCLA/NE, IA/MN. In the first year the first group in the East plays the first group in the West, etc, the next year the first East group plays the second West group, etc.
This schedule would limit USC and UCLA to one East Coast time zone game per year, and equally divides the original Big Ten teams between the divisions. The drawbacks are that, compared to the 3-6-6 format, it requires four years instead of two to cycle through all the conference members, and would constrain USC to one “brand” game against the East per year, which the media would probably dislike.
LikeLike
The drawbacks are that, compared to the 3-6-6 format, it requires four years instead of two to cycle through all the conference members, and would constrain USC to one “brand” game against the East per year, which the media would probably dislike.
The media don’t pay as much for what they dislike, which is probably why this is unlikely to happen.
LikeLike
Donald, your proposal still contains awkward “locked games” and it perpetuates the problem of the heavyweights in the east beating each other up while the schools in the west play them with low frequency.
LikeLike
Colin, yes it does maintain the East/West imbalance, but it is less so than the current system (assuming that USC can return to its historical mean). While one can say that the proposal does have “locked” games, I don’t believe they in the same category as defining, for example, a few special rivalry games outside of the normal schedule. I don’t find the proposed system awkward or asymmetric in scheduling for any team, but I do concede the issue (also alluded to by Marc) that there will be a reduction of the East-West contests compared to today (or in a 3-6-6 format).
I happen to prefer this system to any other that I’ve seen, but I suspect the media will have more of a say in the decision than I do.
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of playing a lot of schools only once every 4 years when you can easily play everyone twice in 4 years (so all players who stay for 4 years get to see every B10 stadium) with 16 schools. This plan artificially restricts the Western teams from playing UMich/OSU as often as they could and the Eastern teams from LA.
There’s not a lot of difference between flying from LA to the Midwest and from LA to the East Coast anyway.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting thought exercise, but I do feel like a lot of the concerns raised in the article are valid. The bowl system exists to serve many masters, and not everyone would be served by their move to the beginning of the year. Moving them to the start eliminates their ‘reward’ purpose for the players and turns them back into kickoff classics, and don’t really serve their original intended purpose from the POV of the city hosting them. Now, it’s easy enough to say, “who cares, do you want this game or not [city]?” But if it isn’t serving the majority of its original purpose I’m unsure that’s a good solution.
Also, if every team is eligible and we end up with 60+ games, does it fill in as the 12th game of the season (eliminating an OOC regular season matchup) or are we just adding a 13th game? I read the article pretty quickly so maybe it was addressed and I missed it on skim, but it feels like a convoluted system to avoid the simpler but more painful (and likely more correct) answer: eliminate the bowl system.
And I think the concerns around springs games against FCS teams raise good points, and probably cloud the question of why have spring games at all. I know OSU has been trending away from treating that game as a real one, and for good reason. Adding an FCS opponent feels like trending in the opposite direction.
LikeLike
@manifestodeluxe: I think you inadvertently replied to the wrong comment. In any event…
Early-season neutral-site games have been proven to work, but only in limited supply. If everyone plays them, it kind of ruins the point. You can sell tickets for LSU vs. USC in Las Vegas in August—an actual game scheduled a couple of years from now—based on the reputations of the two programs. I am not sure it works if you have two random teams playing.
…it feels like a convoluted system to avoid the simpler but more painful (and likely more correct) answer: eliminate the bowl system.
The bowl system is not going away because the bowls are popular. There are perhaps too many bowls, which the leaders of the sport have admitted. But I don’t see them going down to just six bowls, which was the proposal in the article.
I think the concerns around springs games against FCS teams raise good points, and probably cloud the question of why have spring games at all.
Spring games now are just open practices, and I see nothing wrong with that. Bring in an FCS opponent and it begins to resemble a real game.
LikeLike
Marc:
Whoops, looks like it. Browser doesn’t care for WordPress once the comments are in the many hundreds.
We’re in agreement I believe regarding the bowls. I don’t think they will go away, even if I think they probably should. But the same driving forces keeping forty bowl games are the same forces that make their transition to kickoff classics unlikely.
And I think that was what I was trying to get at: It’s an interesting thought experiment that won’t stand up to interests.
LikeLike
MD – the bowls ceased being a reward with the CFP. Locals don’t support their games like they used to. For example, the Peach was sold out for something like 30 straight years usually matching up the 5th best SEC team against the 3rd best ACC team or something like that. Now, even though its a NY6 game, if its not a semifinal, there’s 10k empty seats in the building. Same for the Fiesta.
The bowl games in August would not be a 13th game under their plan, but would be a substitute for the weakest home game (think FCS).
LikeLike
Alan,
If they are not tied to tourism, the holidays, and other big events locally, in what way are these bowl games? Aren’t they just neutral site OOC games like we’ve had for a long time? It would just be a lot of places doing what Atlanta and Dallas have specialized in lately.
Honestly, I’d rather they play on campus. Nobody wants to travel in late August to a CFB game that doesn’t involve elite teams, and locals won’t support these games that much either.
LikeLike
Brian – locals don’t support them now. Most fan bases don’t attend the vast majority of bowls either. They are largely made for TV events. The bowl system is broken and they suggested an idea to shake it up. I like it. You don’t. That’s fine.
Fans of B1G schools love their Florida New Year’s vacations and that’s why I suggested that some still be played in addition to the August bowl games.
I have attended all but three of LSU’s bowl games since 1984, along with several other Sugar and Independence bowls over the years. That’s a pretty good microcosm of the bowls. One is the little bowl in a town nobody has heard of with the goofy sponsors and the other is second in stature only to the Rose. Both have suffered under the BCS and especially the CFP. The Sugar does fine when there is an SEC team or its a semifinal, but I attended the last Michigan Sugar Bowl along with 50,000 others.
LikeLike
Alan,
– locals don’t support them now.
Why should they? The tickets are ridiculously expensive now. That didn’t used to be true, which is why locals would come watch 2 teams they don’t care about.
Most fan bases don’t attend the vast majority of bowls either.
They are hundreds to thousands of miles away, tickets are expensive, and the opponent is often a team you don’t care about. And with all the bowls, many are in cities you don’t want to waste vacation on.
They are largely made for TV events.
That’s why ESPN owns 20 of them and televises 15 more.
The bowl system is broken and they suggested an idea to shake it up.
It was broken the instant they started the BCS. As soon as there was a title game to chase, bowl lost value. When they started adding bowls in the 2000s, bowls lost value. When they moved the BCSCG out of the bowls, bowls lost more value. When they started the CFP, bowls lost almost all value.
If you keep telling everyone how important the CFP is, you can’t expect players or fans to take the bowls seriously any more.
I like it. You don’t. That’s fine.
It’s really not that. I don’t necessarily mind the game being played then, though I think all teams should get a chance if they are played in August.
That’s not the issue I’m trying to bring up. I’m seriously asking what in this plan makes it a bowl game and not just a neutral site OOC game? There’s nothing inherently wrong with neutral site games, I’m not saying that to be pejorative.
To me, part of a bowl trip is all the ancillary stuff. The OL from each team having a steak eating competition, parades, trips to the amusement parks, swag bags. A week in town enjoying life and then playing one last game for fun. Is all that going to happen in August? Do coaches want their players relaxing that way just before the season starts? Can players be out of school for that long?
The bowls are held when many people are off work. That’s not going to happen in August. Will they move to smaller stadiums? Will they still televise several a day all week long?
And it’s not clear to me whether these games count as game 1 of 12 or of 13. Can you still play in a bowl and the CFP later?
Fans of B1G schools love their Florida New Year’s vacations and that’s why I suggested that some still be played in addition to the August bowl games.
They could get back to being important, in that only top 25-level teams get to play in them again.
I have attended all but three of LSU’s bowl games since 1984, along with several other Sugar and Independence bowls over the years. That’s a pretty good microcosm of the bowls. One is the little bowl in a town nobody has heard of with the goofy sponsors and the other is second in stature only to the Rose. Both have suffered under the BCS and especially the CFP. The Sugar does fine when there is an SEC team or its a semifinal, but I attended the last Michigan Sugar Bowl along with 50,000 others.
And I’ve never attended one because I only visit family over the winter and the only bowl near me is in Detroit in winter – no thanks. The Peach Bowl always used to be sold out when I lived in Atlanta, so that wasn’t an option. Part of the problem is that the ticket brokers get all the tickets, then gouge everyone until the last second.
LikeLike
Very difficult to maintain the divisions from the perspectives of 1) TV money, 2) schools wanting to play each other, and 3) parity.
Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Michigan State are great for selling out games and bringing fans traveling; the West teams don’t want to lose them from the schedule even more than they already have.
And the bigger issue is TV. TV wants “national” crossover matchups between USC/UCLA and Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan (and even Michigan State) as often as possible.
Yes Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa give you a bit of that, but you need all of those schools in the mix playing USC/UCLA to get their full TV value.
I would be shocked if divisions are kept; dropping divisions makes sense.
LikeLike
Donald,
I don’t think I’ve seen your plan before so at least its original.
What are the problems your plan is designed to solve, and what are the costs of you plan?
Apologies if this proposal has been previously mentioned by someone else, but there is an approach to Big Ten football scheduling that minimizes travel, maintains all important rivalries without resorting to awkward “locked games”, allows each school to play all others over a four-year period, and produces relatively “fair” schedules for all.
So the keys for you are:
1. Minimize travel, in a conference that stretches coast to coast
2. Maintain all key rivalries
3. No awkward locked games
4. Play at least every 4 years
5. Relatively fair SOS
Travel:
The closest school to LA is still 1500 miles away. More importantly, you just dumped all the long trips, and the associated costs, on the western teams. The LA schools will each play 4 games east of the mountains no matter what. It’s an extra hour (plus a time change) to get to OSU if you’re already flying the 3 hours to NE (that’s just time in the air), and only an extra 15 minutes over flying to Chicago (plus the time change). In 2 extra hours (plus a time change), they can be in Newark, NJ. Is saving 4 hours and 4 extra time changes total worth it?
Rivalries:
IL/PU play for a cannon
OSU/IL play for a wooden turtle
MI/MN play for a jug
MSU really wants to play NW
The TV networks want OSU/MI/PSU/MSU vs USC/UCLA/NE/WI/IA
All of those drop to once every 4 years. I don’t consider that maintaining all the important rivalries. Once every other year is bad enough.
And no awkward locked games? What about your upper/lower pairs? Only 3 of those are games the B10 would want locked. What about the in-division games like RU vs anyone but UMD and PSU? PU against anyone but IN? Etc.
Frequency:
3-6-6 plans play everyone in 2 years. You need huge benefits to justify a plan that cuts that in half. I don’t see the B10 accepting anything that infrequent.
Balanced SOS:
There are many ways to accomplish that, but is it even important? The best teams never play themselves, so their SOS trends lower. That may be balanced by having them play more of the other good teams. But if you’re playing 9 of 15 teams, how much can your SOS differ on average? And since it rotates, it will average out over time. So really, you’re looking at year to year fluctuations more than anything. But CFB teams are so up and down that those are hard to avoid. Just eliminating divisions fixes the current issue.
Other Costs:
TV will pay much less if you aren’t going to play as many brand vs brand games. Those game pay exponentially more than other games.
LikeLike
Brian, I don’t believe that there are any “locked” games (at least in my understanding of the term) in my proposal. For example, OSU and RU would play every year as division mates; they are not “locked” as in creating asymmetrical schedules. The pair simply share common foes each year; over four years everyone in a division has the same schedule of teams.
Yes, there are some broken rivalry games, but the system is better (in my view) than we have currently (or are likely to have in the adopted versions).
My main motivation was to avoid the arbitrary attempts to assign everyone N permanent rivals which lead to some strange pairings. I also wanted to minimize the time zone changes (this is more important than the extra hour of flight time) and to mitigate to a degree the random out-of-division strength of schedule.
The main objection to the proposal is the media rights; I can understand why networks would not be willing to pay for this bifurcation of the top brands. I just happen to prefer having a large set of teams that my alma mater plays every year with a regular sampling of other schools in the conference, but understand why others would choose other systems.
LikeLike
Donald,
Brian, I don’t believe that there are any “locked” games (at least in my understanding of the term) in my proposal. For example, OSU and RU would play every year as division mates; they are not “locked” as in creating asymmetrical schedules. The pair simply share common foes each year; over four years everyone in a division has the same schedule of teams.
To me, any game played every year is a locked game. So all division games are locked games. It’s one downside of divisions.
Yes, there are some broken rivalry games, but the system is better (in my view) than we have currently (or are likely to have in the adopted versions).
The current divisions are terribly unbalanced. But I prefer them your plan simply because there are 3 crossover games to play 7 teams, which is much better than playing once in four years. When expanding, the number of annual games needs to be reduced. You can do pods, but those don’t cleanly work for the B10 either. That leaves locked rivals as the best alternative.
You would probably prefer Marc’s plan, where the number of locked rivals varies from team to team. I prefer it as well, I just don’t think it is likely to be implemented. It is much easier to explain to fans that everyone has 3 locked rivals than to explain why that team has 2 while this one has 3, and why didn’t this other rivalry get locked, etc. 3-6-6 is neat and simple.
My main motivation was to avoid the arbitrary attempts to assign everyone N permanent rivals which lead to some strange pairings. I also wanted to minimize the time zone changes (this is more important than the extra hour of flight time) and to mitigate to a degree the random out-of-division strength of schedule.
You assigned everyone 7 permanent rivals with your system, the most extreme version of what you’re complaining about. Are those pairings any less strange? Most people view rotating through everyone as much as possible to be more equitable.
I understand wanting to reduce time zone changes, but they will always be changing at least 2 time zones on road trips. I’m not sure 1 more is a big difference. They will be flying on Friday and Saturday night/Sunday. It will be a bigger deal for weeknight games, like in basketball.
The main objection to the proposal is the media rights; I can understand why networks would not be willing to pay for this bifurcation of the top brands. I just happen to prefer having a large set of teams that my alma mater plays every year with a regular sampling of other schools in the conference, but understand why others would choose other systems.
The media rights is a big objection, but I think the main objection is playing half of the B10 only once every 4 years. This isn’t the SEC, where not playing some conference members is fine. Many of the western schools would have serious objections to not playing OSU/MI/PSU/MSU more frequently, just as the eastern schools would complain about annual games with RU and UMD but rarely playing century-old foes like WI, MN, NW, IL, and IA.
Besides, the B10 has precedent for using locked rivals. That’s how they scheduled with 11 teams – everyone had 2 locked rivals and then played 6 of the other 8 schools.
Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
LikeLike
Brian, I now understand your point about locked rivals! I had improperly confined the term to “special cases that were added to the normal rotation”. Yes, divisions do clearly lock rivals!
I happen to like divisions but appear to be in the minority on this matter.
I have always had a distaste for “lock” exceptions, as they unbalance the schedule.
I don’t believe that the conference scheduling to date has been particularly good at cycling through the teams, so the conference clearly does not highly value this aspect (my proposal would definitely be an improvement). My favorite property of the 3-6-6 scheme is indeed the two year cycle period.
LikeLike
Divisions are okay with 12 teams. Play 5 in division, then 3 or 4 of the other 6. At 14 it’s becoming an issue, even with 9 games. At 16, there just aren’t enough crossover games.
The B10’s first divisions were hardly beloved. East/West makes more sense except for PU/IN, but the middle bunch of schools miss playing each other more instead of the eastern newbies getting those games.
I agree that locked rivals within divisions is bad. It’s necessary when there are no divisions (nobody is going to agree to have OSU and MI not play and hurt the TV payout).
The recent scheduling was terrible because of Delany’s parity-based scheduling plan (which we abandoned after 4 years, I think).
East
A – OSU, MI, PSU
B – MSU, RU, UMD
C – IN
West
A – NE, WI, IA
B – NW, IL, MN
C – PU
Every team was locked with a same-level team from the other division (A-A, B-B, C-C) for 6 years. Then you played 1 team from each of the remaining pools, with the C-level team joining the pool to replace the locked team. Rotating through the pairings would take 6 years, then the locked teams would switch. The whole plan would take 18 years, then reset the tiers I suppose.
Example: OSU – NE locked, play 1 of NW/IL/MN, play 1 of WI/IA/PU
That’s why it seemed so unbalanced – it was intentionally biased to chase TV money.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/05/college-football-realignment-chaos-new-season-daily-cover
Where has realignment taken college sports, and where could it be heading in the future?
Various of their writers tackle issues, and mostly the answers are predictable.
What is the Power 5 power ranking, and who ranks as the Best of the Rest?
…
Which schools hold the most power going forward? And which programs will decide what happens next?
…
Who has the most to lose in this realignment chaos?
…
Which network has the upper hand, Fox or ESPN?
Moving forward, it is unquestionably Fox. While ESPN is the biggest chip on the board in the SEC (especially when it gets exclusivity in 2024), Fox is in prime position to wrestle some of the locus of control back from the four-letter network. Fox now has Los Angeles in its pocket, but also stands to gain a seat at the table if the College Football Playoff expands after this current TV deal expires. It’s clear the Pac-12 and Big Ten want multiple TV partners involved in negotiations instead of just ESPN, which means, in all likelihood, ESPN will somehow have to share the CFP with Fox.
What has been the best rumor of the past month?
…
Our best guess at what will be the next big move?
While realignment seems to be on pause at the moment, it is unlikely to stay that way. Does it mean the Big Ten will add two more teams tomorrow, or the Big 12 will poach half the Pac-12 by the end of next week? No, but the next three to five years are certain to bring more movement within the Power 5.
The Pac-12’s two remaining biggest brands, Washington or Oregon, are unlikely to sign any kind of long-term contract to remain in the league. Three years? Maybe. Six years? No way. If negotiations over the Pac-12’s new TV deal don’t go as planned, maybe we see the Ducks and Huskies move, especially if (1) the Big Ten drops an invite or (2) the Big 12’s TV negotiations in two years produce a more glamorous revenue figure.
Either way, the Big Ten seems willing to eventually expand again, and that means the SEC could respond with another expansion of its own, potentially reciprocating the interest from a bevy of ACC teams that could challenge the grant of rights in exchange for a spot in one of the Big 2. Buckle up. By 2028, the sport could be a 40-team, two-conference structure that perhaps operates as a semiprofessional entity.
I’m surprised they said Fox has the upper hand. I think they are just reducing the gap to ESPN.
LikeLike
Which network has the upper hand, Fox or ESPN?
Moving forward, it is unquestionably Fox.
I certainly do not think Fox “unquestionably” has the upper hand. That gap between them is likely to narrow, but that’s about it. Disney controls ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPN+. Fox simply does not have a comparable set of channels. ESPN alone will probably have games every Saturday from noon to past midnight, a line-up Fox will not match.
If ESPN lands even a sliver of the Big Ten package, they are likely to remain the only network that all of the P5 (and most of the G5) are on. Heck, even if ESPN gets none of the Big Ten, it will have 100% of the SEC, which is worth at least as much and might very well be worth more.
LikeLike
Marc: “I certainly do not think Fox “unquestionably” has the upper hand.”
I agree, but they are in an interesting position, especially with regard to NBC. NBC wants Big Ten “shoulder programming” for ND but what caliber of content are they after? They aren’t going to get the Tier One games like OSU-PSU or USC-Michigan – that will be on Fox. The Tier Two games, e.g. UCLA-Wisc or MSU-Iowa, would seem to be the kind desired by NBC, FS1, CBS, ABC, NBC and ESPN. There aren’t that many to go around.
The Tier Three games are what is now on the BTN but is seems that that those games may now become bargaining chips since Fox pretty much owns the BTN. Seems like Fox would want top dollar to provide that programming to competitors like NBC to the detriment of the BTN.
LikeLike
Colin,
A = OSU, MI, PSU, NE, USC
B = WI, MSU, IA, UCLA
C = everyone else (7 teams)
Full round robin:
AA – 10
AB – 20
BB – 6
AC – 35
BC – 28
CC – 21
9/15 (60%) of that is basically a typical season:
AA – 6
AB – 12
BB – 4
AC – 21
BC – 17
CC – 12
Well, 4 weeks at least will be OOC games. Those will cover the gamut of levels as well. I’ll focus on the conference weeks.
So assume Fox + CBS get all the AA, AB, and BB games (20 total). That leaves 2 BB games and 15 AC games for NBC to choose from. That leaves 7 AC games plus the 17 BC and 12 CC games. FS1 and ESPN can take the remaining games that BTN doesn’t get. It isn’t quite this straight forward as BTN has the right to show everyone at least twice, including 1 conference game, but it ballparks what’s available.
LikeLike
UNL is in B now.
They aren’t much different from Iowa these days.
LikeLike
It’s a continuum. NE is an A-/B+ depending on what factors you are weighting most heavily. One could debate whether UCLA is truly a B, or if anyone else should be (NW has more CCG appearances than most of the As).
It doesn’t materially change the results, which is that there are quite a few games to go around.
LikeLike
They aren’t going to get the Tier One games like OSU-PSU or USC-Michigan – that will be on Fox.
Fox does not have all of the Tier One games. They currently alternate the choice with ESPN, except that they have #1 overall, which they have always used for Mich–OSU. For instance, OSU–ND (clearly tier one if anything is) is on ABC.
LikeLike
Of all the media personalities, in my experiece, Dan Patrick has the best sources. It’s true. I say this, fully aware that reactionary scepticism is the default setting for many of you. According to Patrick, the SEC (Sankey) feels it is increasingly likely Notre Dame will join the B1G sooner rather than later as a result of their NBC negotiations (I’ve heard this too via unreliable second-hand water cooler yakkity-yak 😇) and that the SEC plan to respond with a gamed-out raid of the ACC, poaching FSU/Clemson/Miami (and maybe more), GOR be damned. Miami? Really? Anyhoo, take it for what it’s worth. Patrick also reiterated that he holds his sources accountable and that these are time-tested (ESPN) and solid. He’s having Sankey on next week.
LikeLike
https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/dan-patrick-thinks-sec-will-go-after-3-major-programs
He first said those 3 might go to the SEC in early July, so this isn’t really anything new.
I don’t see why the B10 getting on NBC would cause such a reaction. ND joining the B10 is one thing, but freaking out over NBC carrying B10 games? How is that bigger than CBS carrying them? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Let alone, how will they break the GOR? Pay $1.5B for the 3 schools.
LikeLike
Why would the Big 10 give any games to NBC unless Notre Dame agrees to join the conference? It makes no sense. . . . . at all. Ergo, to the extent you think NBC is going to get “shoulder programming” from the BiG, you should think that it is likely that ND is joining the conference.
As for Washington and Oregon, why would those schools join an academically inferior (matters to U-Dub) and 2nd-tier football conference with an onerous and perpetual exit fee? Don’t you think they see how much that’s hurting the power teams in the ACC, and how it’s inhibiting Oklahoma and Texas? Let’s get real.
LikeLike
To be more specific, why would Fox (since they clearly are calling the shots) give NBC any BiG programming without getting access to Notre Dame?
LikeLike
Redwood86,
Why would the Big 10 give any games to NBC unless Notre Dame agrees to join the conference? It makes no sense. . . . . at all. Ergo, to the extent you think NBC is going to get “shoulder programming” from the BiG, you should think that it is likely that ND is joining the conference.
As for Washington and Oregon, why would those schools join an academically inferior (matters to U-Dub) and 2nd-tier football conference with an onerous and perpetual exit fee? Don’t you think they see how much that’s hurting the power teams in the ACC, and how it’s inhibiting Oklahoma and Texas? Let’s get real.
—
To be more specific, why would Fox (since they clearly are calling the shots) give NBC any BiG programming without getting access to Notre Dame?
Because NBC offered more money than anyone else for that package? Because Fox doesn’t have the ability to show all the games, so someone needs to? Because ESPN also can’t show them all after adding the SEC? Because CBS doesn’t want all the games? Because it’s better than BTN or streaming?
Fox already has some ND access – ND plays at USC every year, plus ND frequently plays other B10 teams.
Fox gets to give advice, but they don’t get to decide everything. These are the B10’s rights. And nobody is “giving” NBC anything. They will have to pay a lot of money to get B10 games.
Why might UW and UO join the B12? I don’t think they would, but I can think of some reasons:
1. Stanford (even worse – Stanford and Cal) joins the B10, and the P12 loses more value.
2. They get sick of the instability, and the 4 corners schools wavering back and forth.
3. The make a business decision that only by merging can the BP12 be competitive, and they know the exit fee prevents the B12 schools from moving.
3a. The same, plus they want to drop OrSU and WSU along the way for financial reasons.
4. TV decides they’ll pay the B12 notably more than the P12.
LikeLike
Redwood86: “To be more specific, why would Fox (since they clearly are calling the shots) give NBC any BiG programming without getting access to Notre Dame?”
Redwood, I’ve been asking somewhat the same question for the past few weeks and have been beaten up repeatedly by fellow posters telling me that the Big Ten should get as much money as possible without regard to Notre Dame’s fate. Quite a few people here don’t understand that the Big Ten shouldn’t be played by NBC and ND for the sake of this “induhpendunce”.
LikeLike
Colin,
Redwood, I’ve been asking somewhat the same question for the past few weeks and have been beaten up repeatedly by fellow posters telling me that the Big Ten should get as much money as possible without regard to Notre Dame’s fate. Quite a few people here don’t understand that the Big Ten shouldn’t be played by NBC and ND for the sake of this “induhpendunce”.
No, we don’t understand your insistence that letting NBC broadcast B10 games constitutes being played by NBC and ND. You just claim it, without ever connecting the dots in any way. NBC is a network that broadcasts sports. The B10 has sports rights up for bid. Why should the B10 take less money to avoid having games on NBC? Where should those games go instead? Fox and ESPN are limited in games they can show. CBS only wants 1 per week. Should more games go into a streaming package so nobody can see them just to avoid NBC, a broadcast network with much, much more visibility? Or maybe even more games should be on BTN? How does that help the B10?
We also don’t understand your obsession with ending ND’s independence. They want to be independent. Who does that harm? You can’t force ND to drop independence. They have to get there on their own, and they hold grudges for decades. Any attempts to work against them now would only drive them away, and they could join the SEC if backed into a corner. So the B10 focuses on what’s good for the B10, knowing that in the long run that will make the B10 more attractive for ND.
LikeLike
Brian, you are wrong on both issues.
(1) “We don’t understand your insistence that letting NBC broadcast B10 games constitutes being played by NBC and ND.”
If ND joins a conference, NBC obviously loses their ND football broadcasts. I am certain they are not joining a conference and all of the rumors we are hearing from Thamel, Neuheisel, Canzano, the Stanford AD, etc., are being started by ND to get NBC bidding higher for Irish home football.
(2) “We also don’t understand your obsession with ending ND’s independence.”
See answer #1. I’m certain they are not joining a conference. Some of you guys may have taken the bait, but I’m not.
LikeLike
Colin,
“If ND joins a conference, NBC obviously loses their ND football broadcasts.”
Not true. NBC would need to sign a deal with that conference and pay for the right to show those games. They could get up to 11 ND games that way. It would just cost a lot more.
“I am certain they are not joining a conference and all of the rumors we are hearing from Thamel, Neuheisel, Canzano, the Stanford AD, etc., are being started by ND to get NBC bidding higher for Irish home football.”
Well as long as you’re certain, the whole world should stop. Most people don’t think ND is dropping independence, because they think NBC will pay enough to keep ND happy. ND is asking for fair market value for their rights, if some experts think it’s a bargain (and NBC has their own experts advising them). If ND can negotiate a better deal from NBC, good for them.
You still have no connection to the B10 being played by this. You continue to show no downside to the B10 from getting games on NBC and being paid well for it.
“See answer #1. I’m certain they are not joining a conference. Some of you guys may have taken the bait, but I’m not”
Too bad you can’t read well. Multiple people here have repeatedly said they don’t think ND is dropping independence. But you are militant about it, like the B10 and others should do everything in their power to harm ND because they want to stay independent.
LikeLike
Brian, you continue the ad hominem attacks rather than refuting my position. I may not have summarized it in one place but I think my rationale has been consistent and is logical. I believe:
1. ND is not joining a conference. Period.
2. Given the estimates for the upcoming SEC and Big Ten TV contracts, ND’s deals with NBC and the ACC are looking like chump change.
3. ND can get a big revenue boost if they join the Big Ten like USC and UCLA did.
4. If ND drops hints and spreads rumors that they are “in play” for joining the Big Ten, NBC will respond by getting quality “shoulder programming” to increase viewers and provide the increased payout to ND.
5. Tier Three programming from the Big Ten is probably superior to Tier One programming from the Big XII.
6. If the Big Ten agrees to this, they should demand the same payout-per-game that ND receives. If ND gets $75 million divided by 7 or about $10 million per game, that’s what the Big Ten should be paid for the ND doubleheader that features Iowa vs Illinois.
Now, if you disagree with my rationale, debate the issues rather than continuing the personal attacks.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Brian, you continue the ad hominem attacks rather than refuting my position.”
Perhaps because you keep saying things that are factually untrue. Who are all the people on here claiming ND is going to join the B10? You claimed certain writers did, and below I quoted yet another example of one of them saying the exact opposite. At this point, it seems intentional.
“I may not have summarized it in one place but I think my rationale has been consistent and is logical. I believe:”
You don’t have a rationale, you have beliefs. As you yourself just said. There is no refuting beliefs.
“1. ND is not joining a conference. Period.”
That’s a belief, not a rationale. Most, if not all, of us here have agreed ND isn’t joining a conference in the next few years.
“2. Given the estimates for the upcoming SEC and Big Ten TV contracts, ND’s deals with NBC and the ACC are looking like chump change.”
Their current NBC deal? Yes, of course. That’s why people started speculating about ND joining a conference, and why ND demanded a big jump in payout.
Their new TV deal? We can’t possibly know that yet. But if they get their requested $75M, which some experts have called a bargain? Then you are incorrect. The ACC deal pays them around $11M, plus they get CFP money separately. They’d be on the order of $90M in total. That’s not chump change in college revenue.
“3. ND can get a big revenue boost if they join the Big Ten like USC and UCLA did.”
They could, but they’d prefer to stay independent. They could also get that boost if they sign a new deal to replace their current NBC deal, whether with NBC or someone else.
“4. If ND drops hints and spreads rumors that they are “in play” for joining the Big Ten, NBC will respond by getting quality “shoulder programming” to increase viewers and provide the increased payout to ND.”
ND doesn’t want shoulder programming, they want money. They’d prefer NBC only ever showed or talked about them. ND will tolerate shoulder programming to get their money.
“5. Tier Three programming from the Big Ten is probably superior to Tier One programming from the Big XII.”
How are you defining your tiers? Every B10 team has to play at least 2 games on BTN, and at least 1 must be a conference game. So OSU/RU to RU/I-AA is quite a range. Tier 1 B12 games would top most of those games. Assuming Fox and CBS are taking the top 2 picks each week, NBC could get anything from the 3rd pick down. But the B12 has decent games with OkSU, WV, TCU, TT, and whoever happens to be good.
I can neither agree nor disagree with you because you aren’t defining the tiers.
“6. If the Big Ten agrees to this, they should demand the same payout-per-game that ND receives. If ND gets $75 million divided by 7 or about $10 million per game, that’s what the Big Ten should be paid for the ND doubleheader that features Iowa vs Illinois.”
If the B10 agree to what? NBC broadcasting games for a fee? That is what the B10 does with their rights – sell them to networks.
Nobody knows how much the B10 is asking for from NBC, and you’ve neve made that part of your argument. You have always said the B10 is getting played as a certainty, knowing that no numbers are out there.
Why should the B10 get the same amount as ND per game? The B10 has 16 members, most of which don’t come close to the popularity of ND. Over the 5-year period before COVID, only OSU and MI drew more viewers than ND on average. Most drew a lot fewer viewers. Third tier B10 games would be lower value than ND games, and thus should cost less.
Your position makes no financial sense. NBC should have to pay what any other network would pay for the same package of B10 games – that’s the measuring stick.
And again, nowhere in this is there any link to the B10 getting played by NBC for allowing them to show B10 games.
LikeLike
The way I would phrase the NBC situation is:
1) If Notre Dame does NOT join the BiG, NBC has the best potential to keep Notre Dame but the worst potential to gain Big 10 “shoulder” programming. If Fox and the BiG want ND in the BiG, Fox should strongly urge the BiG to sacrifice a few dollars – only if necessary – to steer its games away from NBC to CBS, ESPN, or some other alternative (hello streaming) until ND “comes to Jesus”.
2) If Notre Dame does join the BiG, but insists on always appearing on NBC with the same broadcast team for home games as a condition, then NBC has the best potential to both retain Notre Dame AND become a significant broadcaster of BiG games outside of ND.
3) If Notre Dame joins the BiG without the NBC condition, then NBC has no inside play to leverage to gain Big Ten games.
So, it seems to me that NBC may have a vested interest in, as a quid pro quo to get BiG shoulder programming, encouraging Notre Dame to join the BiG with the condition that the Irish retain its exclusive network and broadcast team for home games. If we assume that ND will play 4-5 conference and 2-3 home OOC games, this should leave ample quality inventory for Fox.
Of course, all of this deductive logic assumes that NBC will be better able to pay what BiG (& ND) require if BiG shoulder progamming is part of the package.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
The way I would phrase the NBC situation is:
1) If Notre Dame does NOT join the BiG, NBC has the best potential to keep Notre Dame but the worst potential to gain Big 10 “shoulder” programming. If Fox and the BiG want ND in the BiG, Fox should strongly urge the BiG to sacrifice a few dollars – only if necessary – to steer its games away from NBC to CBS, ESPN, or some other alternative (hello streaming) until ND “comes to Jesus”.
I think those are 2 separate things. NBC is very likely to keep ND because they will pay enough that ND can stay independent. Getting B10 games is a separate negotiation. NBC might decide that ND + the B10 is too expensive for them, but that’s far from given.
Attempts to force ND to join the B10 are counterproductive. They will dig in their heels and refuse, or join the SEC out of spite. The B10 knows this, and so does Fox. Only fans push for this approach to ND.
By most accounts, the B10 is already trying to sell CBS a game of the week package. They aren’t going to go beyond that, so that’s not an option. The B10 would love to stay on ESPN, but that negotiation is also ongoing. But we don’t know how many games Fox and ESPN want. It may come down to putting games on NBC, BTN, or streaming. NBC is by far the best of those 3 options. The B10 will make the best business decision for the B10, and let ND make its own decisions.
2) If Notre Dame does join the BiG, but insists on always appearing on NBC with the same broadcast team for home games as a condition, then NBC has the best potential to both retain Notre Dame AND become a significant broadcaster of BiG games outside of ND.
First, I think this is highly unlikely. If ND does demand that, they’d have to make some compromises with the B10 elsewhere. But as long as the money is split equally, I really don’t see it as a big deal. NBC would have to pay more to get that privilege, though, as normally Fox would get some of those games.
3) If Notre Dame joins the BiG without the NBC condition, then NBC has no inside play to leverage to gain Big Ten games.
They don’t need anything but money. The B10 wants to spread games around.
So, it seems to me that NBC may have a vested interest in, as a quid pro quo to get BiG shoulder programming, encouraging Notre Dame to join the BiG with the condition that the Irish retain its exclusive network and broadcast team for home games. If we assume that ND will play 4-5 conference and 2-3 home OOC games, this should leave ample quality inventory for Fox.
I think their best interest is to pay ND enough to stay independent, plus pay the B10 for a weekly game. If the B10 is too expensive, they can use the P12 or B12 instead. The P12 would be happy to get a deal and would be much cheaper, plus it would guarantee NBC another ND game every other year (Stanford).
Of course, all of this deductive logic assumes that NBC will be better able to pay what BiG (& ND) require if BiG shoulder progamming is part of the package.
I think B10 games would help them afford ND’s price. The B10 games might be more reasonable since there are multiple other networks bidding and they can know they are paying the market rate. ND may have to be overpaid, plus is a lot more risky.
LikeLike
He began by saying to his co-hosts “Do you guys remember, two weeks ago, when I told you…” What followed was an update to his earlier report, with new details from the same source. So it presumably WAS something new. Is it true? I have no idea. His source believes it’s true. Furthermore, the notion that Dan Patrick doesn’t have a grasp of what breaking a GOR entails seems very unlikely. I agree with him that if ND joins the B1G outright, the SEC will respond in some capacity, but testing the ACC’s GOR seems a stretch. Especially when the trio listed are brand attractive, but revenue neutral. Basically a very expensive defensive measure.
LikeLike
The new bit was the B10/NBC/ND part.
Nobody knows what breaking that GOR entails because it’s never been done. I’m sure he knows it’s a barrier, but he’s taking his source’s word that this is what is going on.
I would expect some reaction to a ND addition, sure. But the ACC is the only source of schools the SEC wants, and I don’t think they are affordable right now. The B12 and P12 schools don’t add value for them, and the SEC’s brand is built on being southeastern. I’d expect the SEC to tout how much better they still are on the field, and try to setup the expanded CFP so they’ll make much more than anyone else from it. Then they’ll wait until 2030ish and start seriously considering the ACC teams. Sometimes doing nothing is the best response.
The big question that only the TV people and the SEC know the answer to is: “Do those ACC schools add value to the SEC?”. I don’t think they do, but maybe in the new world brand and market share trump everything else.
LikeLike
ND has 7 football games that are under their control. They do not have to join the B1G to schedule B1G schools. They already schedule 2 or 3 B1G teams every year, and that could easily become 5, with two games left over for Navy and Texas.
That is a plausible and doable halfway house to the B1G, and does not violate their ACC commitments.
LikeLike
ND has 7 football games that are under their control. They do not have to join the B1G to schedule B1G schools. They already schedule 2 or 3 B1G teams every year, and that could easily become 5, with two games left over for Navy and Texas.
ND plays one Big Ten team in most years. You could call it two if you are counting USC. To get to five, they’d need to drop Stanford and the two G5 buy games they play every year. I don’t seem them doing that.
LikeLike
I say this, fully aware that reactionary scepticism is the default setting for many of you.
Most realignment rumors do not come true, regardless of the source. Like Brian, I do not see how the ACC raid could work, even assuming that’s what the SEC wanted.
LikeLike
Marc: “Most realignment rumors do not come true, regardless of the source. Like Brian, I do not see how the ACC raid could work, even assuming that’s what the SEC wanted.”
Right, it ignores the Draconian exit fees and GOR penalties. They are stuck until 2036.
LikeLike
In addition, that choice of schools does not make much sense. I think that FSU makes total sense, since UF would be forced to heavily support them and FSU still has a huge footprint in FL. With SEC type money, there is no reason to doubt that FSU could be a king again.
In addition, letting the B1G get FSU could be a major problem for the SEC.
Miami probably adds nothing to the SEC, except as a defensive measure blocking the B1G from any access to FL. With UF and FSU there should be minimal extra income to the SEC. Would they let Miami get a free ride as a defensive measure? I am not sure that Miami would be worthwhile to the B1G, but it is worth even less to the SEC.
Clemson is riding a very hot streak and is a king, for now. Ten years from now when the ACC contract is approaching termination, Clemson can be reevaluated.
If they are still a king or close, that will mean that they have established long term value. Certainly a second school is SC adds little to the SEC and nothing to the B1G, unless it is a king or very close.
Also interesting that NC is not in the picture painted by Dan Patrick, when every other “prediction” includes NC as a major chip.
LikeLike
Really, probably nobody in the ACC is additive to the SEC or B10 besides FSU, but neither conference will go to an odd number. The problem with UNC is that it has rivalries with all 3 of NCSU, Duke, and UVa. I doubt it goes anywhere just by itself.
LikeLike
Every team that changed conferences had rivalries broken. Basketball is the #1 sport at UNC and there are enough OOC games to keep the rival games in that sport if they and their rival’s desire. What will the difference in ACC and B1G/SEC payouts be by 2034? UNC can turn down the money but given its marginal value I doubt they will have the leverage to get any other school in that the conference does not want. I expect both FSU and Clemson will take the $$$ if offered. If the SEC is looking for a +1 to FSU will they just move on to UVa and break the rivalry anyway? That is what UNC will need to consider before turning down a golden ticket if one is offered.
LikeLike
If the SEC’s (ESPN) plan is to raid the ACC (ESPN) despite the GOR, it’s because ESPN is okay with it, and ESPN is the party for whom the GOR exists.
LikeLike
ESPN isn’t party to the GOR, though. That’s the schools.
ESPN would have to be okay with paying the remaining schools under the TV deal, plus potentially losing some ACC schools (including ND games) to the B10. Would they pay the ACC schools the same as the SEC schools, then keep paying the rest of the ACC their full price for the duration? And maintain the ACCN payout as is despite the loss of valuable content?
Plus, all GOR signees have to approve any changes. What is letting schools out worth to the schools that know they will be left behind? BC, SU, Pitt, UL, and Pitt have almost no chance of landing a spot in the P2. GT, NCSU, Duke, and VT are hopeful but not assured of a spot. Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA are confident they will have a spot. And, of course, ND has no concerns. Would the remainder ACC schools sue ESPN for interference? How much would they ask to let schools out of the GOR? $500M each? More? Less?
LikeLike
Is there a publicly available copy of the most recent version of the ESPN/ACC contract? Because without that, it’s kind of pointless to be asserting what either side’s rights are in terms of a desired breach. All we know is that part of the deal was that each of the ACC members had to agree to surrender their rights to the ACC for a fixed period because ESPN demanded that to assure itself what it was agreeing to pay for. But the remedy for the remaining ACC schools if ESPN were to let schools out, for all we know, may be contemplated in the ESPN/ACC contract.
LikeLike
Peter,
The ACC/ESPN deal is separate from the GOR. ESPN is not party to the GOR. That’s why GORs work – they protect the least valuable schools.
LikeLike
“The ACC/ESPN deal is separate from the GOR. ESPN is not party to the GOR. That’s why GORs work – they protect the least valuable schools.”
Have you read the GOR? It is an express condition of the ACC/ESPN deal, and they are coterminous. ESPN is not a “party” to the GOR, but it IS the party in whose interest the GOR was executed. So to read only one of the documents (the GOR) without the ACC/ESPN contract only tells one-half the story.
I’m convinced that half the reason so many people seem to uncritically accept that the GOR is this sacrosanct, ironclad document that keeps schools in a straitjacket is because 1) they are non-lawyers, and 2) they haven’t seen all of the pertinent documents. And evidently the ACC wants to keep it (reason #2) that way. Bottom line is that when ESPN — the party in whose interest the GOR was mandatorily executed — is okay with it ending, it will. And the other schools, depending on what the ACC/ESPN contract says, may not have much to say about it other than a contractual exit fee, which I haven’t seen documented anywhere.
LikeLike
Have you read the GOR? It is an express condition of the ACC/ESPN deal, and they are coterminous.
ESPN wanted the GOR or they would pay the ACC less and not start the ACCN. So what? It still doesn’t make them a party to the GOR. Plenty of lawyers have read it, including teams of lawyers from ACC schools that want to get out of the GOR, and reached the same conclusions.
ESPN is not a “party” to the GOR, but it IS the party in whose interest the GOR was executed.
No, they are one of the parties in whose interest it was executed. It’s greatly to the benefit of the less valuable schools as well. The GOR keeps the top brands in the ACC, which helps the other schools and ESPN.
So to read only one of the documents (the GOR) without the ACC/ESPN contract only tells one-half the story.
It tells a legally-binding story. The ACC/ESPN deal is a related story.
I’m convinced that half the reason so many people seem to uncritically accept that the GOR is this sacrosanct, ironclad document that keeps schools in a straitjacket is because 1) they are non-lawyers, and 2) they haven’t seen all of the pertinent documents.
I’m sure Frank and all the other lawyers that have analyzed public GORs, plus all those lawyers working for the ACC schools who want out of the GOR, appreciate you telling them how stupid they are.
And evidently the ACC wants to keep it (reason #2) that way.
Conferences hide their legal business reflexively, because so many members are state entities subject to sunshine laws. And if I signed such a terrible deal, I wouldn’t want the details in public either.
Bottom line is that when ESPN — the party in whose interest the GOR was mandatorily executed — is okay with it ending, it will.
And your evidence is what? Your spidey-sense?
And the other schools, depending on what the ACC/ESPN contract says, may not have much to say about it other than a contractual exit fee, which I haven’t seen documented anywhere.
“May not have much to say about it” is meaningless, since it includes you being 100% wrong as an option.
If you haven’t seen the exit fee, then you haven’t paid attention. The exit fee has been cited several times online. Someone linked the ACC bylaws here just a few days ago.
LikeLike
If the SEC’s (ESPN) plan is to raid the ACC (ESPN) despite the GOR, it’s because ESPN is okay with it, and ESPN is the party for whom the GOR exists.
Even if that were true, which it is not, ESPN cannot decide unilaterally to shaft the lower-end ACC schools. You are mathematically right that the GOR can be terminated if ESPN pays enough money, but the amount is so high that nobody has ever done it.
LikeLike
Plus, the schools that know they’ll be left behind can always say no. There is no right to buy your way out of a GOR. WF and others can keep those rights in the ACC until 2036 no matter what if they really want to. At some point it will likely become counterproductive, but not for a decade or so.
LikeLike
If ESPN really does offer to pay the remaining ACC schools at the same rate (which I doubt), then it probably makes sense for the remaining schools to let them out:
-they will probably get paid some negotiated exit fees, giving them a net profit for the deal
-they avoid the possibility of a school successfully challenging the GOR. While we downplay the possibility, it is non-zero (especially in a state court for the state school). This disaster would leave them with a much decreased payout, plus lots of lawyer fees!
-the remaining schools may actually get a little more exposure…the ACC contract might get Wake Forest vs. Pitt on ESPN2 in a slot that would otherwise always feature Clemson or FSU.
-remaining on good terms with the moving schools makes it more likely that at least some schools will be able to schedule them regularly in non-conference games. (in an amicable split, FSU might be happy to regularly schedule schools like NCSU, Pitt, or Virginia Tech if they get left behind…a bitter split might preclude that…and everyone wants to continue to play UNC in basketball).
-the psychological relief that comes with being able to move on, instead of worrying about the inevitable movement for a decade.
Again, I don’t think ESPN wants to pay the ACC to encourage movement. But if it does happen, I think an arrangement would be negotiated with the schools.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
If ESPN really does offer to pay the remaining ACC schools at the same rate (which I doubt), then it probably makes sense for the remaining schools to let them out:
Eventually, yes. But right now? These schools will never be at the top level again. They need to endow the future of their ADs with these payouts.
-they will probably get paid some negotiated exit fees, giving them a net profit for the deal
Why negotiate it down? You’re also going to ask for a fee to let them out of the GOR, so why not require the full exit fee and potentially ask less for the GOR? It’s the same dollar total, but it won’t look like you caved.
-they avoid the possibility of a school successfully challenging the GOR. While we downplay the possibility, it is non-zero (especially in a state court for the state school). This disaster would leave them with a much decreased payout, plus lots of lawyer fees!
It is a bigger risk for the school(s) challenging it. They would also have huge legal fees, and owe exit fees, and the GOR would still apply. And the ACC would be the entity defending it, not the school.
-the remaining schools may actually get a little more exposure…the ACC contract might get Wake Forest vs. Pitt on ESPN2 in a slot that would otherwise always feature Clemson or FSU.
Here’s the ACC deal:
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/ACC/2021#.Yu8xfufMKUk
The ACC has a contract with ESPN for all of its football television rights with games airing on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ACC Network and ACC Network Extra. This contract begins with the 2011-12 athletic year and ends with the 2036-37 athletic year.
It does not appear that there are any limits/minimums in terms of number of games over a season for the ACC with their national TV contracts. The ACC is guaranteed a game on Labor Day by ESPN.
A package of 17 games will be distributed to regional sports networks. This package is being managed by Raycom Sports.
To cover the additions of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the conference, the ACC signed an extension with ESPN for more money per school, adding years to the deal that started with the 2011-12 athletic year. Items relevant to football include that the ACC will have up to three Friday night football games per season, one of those three to be played on Black Friday in the afternoon or evening. Specifically, Boston College and Syracuse will each host one Friday night game per year.
Raycom gets 17 games, and the ACC is promised 1 Labor Day game. BC and SU will each host 1 Friday night game, and 1 of the up to 3 Friday night games will be on Black Friday.
Beyond that, ESPN can do whatever it wants with the games. They can let the SEC fill that ESPN2 slot and bury the remaining ACC schools on ACCN. There is no promise of more exposure. That is something ESPN could offer them as an incentive to let people out (if that’s what ESPN wants), but it is not promised currently.
-remaining on good terms with the moving schools makes it more likely that at least some schools will be able to schedule them regularly in non-conference games. (in an amicable split, FSU might be happy to regularly schedule schools like NCSU, Pitt, or Virginia Tech if they get left behind…a bitter split might preclude that…and everyone wants to continue to play UNC in basketball).
There is zero chance of remaining on good terms. Look how B12 fans are talking about OU and UT, and P12 fans about USC and UCLA. It will be much worse in the ACC. They might play them because that’s the sound business decision, but it will never be amicable. Frankly, many of those ACC teams would become buy games or 2-for-1 teams, not home and home series.
-the psychological relief that comes with being able to move on, instead of worrying about the inevitable movement for a decade.
Moving on for them is being demoted into sports poverty forever, and always remembering what used to be. I don’t think much relief will come from that. Ask Rice, Tulane, UConn, etc. how much relief they feel.
Again, I don’t think ESPN wants to pay the ACC to encourage movement. But if it does happen, I think an arrangement would be negotiated with the schools.
In 6 or 8 years it might happen, but I don’t think it will now.
LikeLike
Agree with you. Its all about the Benjamins. If they make a little more money over the next 14 years, it is better for them. Staying the same for 14 years knowing they will leave and burning bridges with ESPN and your conference mates who want to leave is a recipe to end up like UConn.
The question is whether such moves make sense for ESPN. I don’t know if the economics work.
LikeLike
Any thoughts on when the B10 will announce any CCG changes (or definitively say they aren’t changing anything)?
It’s too late to drop divisions for scheduling this year, and I believe they want to leave the 2023 schedule alone as well so they can focus on 2024 and beyond, but they could still switch to taking the top 2 for the CCG. Will the B10 make that change? Should they?
When will they announce their plans for scheduling in 2024 and beyond (3-6-6? pods? divisions? something else?), and for the CCG (top 2?, divisions?)? Next summer?
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten will drop divisions. It allows for more flexible scheduling and eliminates the possibility that a team will back into a Big Ten championship with an 8–5 record. Inevitably, some CCGs will be Rivalry Week re-matches, which is the one thing I hate about it.
I imagine they will wait until 2024.
LikeLike
I wish they’d make a rule preventing rivalry week rematches in the CCG (play #3 instead), but they won’t. They think an OSU/MI game might happen and be hugely valuable. It would really be a rare occurrence, and I don’t think the ratings would be as great as they expect. Look how SEC rematches in the BCS and CFP have done compared to fresh matchups.
LikeLike
I’d imagine it gets hashed out and revealed next summer. 2023 likely remains untouched. Too much to focus on for 2024 and beyond to try to change 2023.
3-6-6 makes the most sense to me with no divisions. Maybe institute it for a 4 or 8 year cycle and then consider changing USC/UCLA’s fixed rivals (outside of each other).
I’d love to see Big Ten semifinals but doubt that’s anywhere in the cards because it’d require a rules change or something incredibly innovative right now like an extra flex week or converting the 9th week into that with 1v4, 2v3, 5v6 and down the line.
I also think there will be a realization that this new scheduling arrangement may only last 12 years at most with potential ACC realignment in 2036 so it doesn’t have to feel too permanent.
Past 13 years has shown just how much change there can be in scheduling: from 11 team with 8 game schedules to 12 with CCG and Leaders/Legends to 14 with geographic divisions and 9 game schedules.
Best not to get too comfy with the 16 team format since Big Ten likely has more to add on both coasts.
LikeLike
And you even glossed over some of the changes:
14 teams started as 8 games for 2 years, then went to 9 with parity-based scheduling, then COVID, and now is back to equal rotation through 9 games.
I think they will definitely reconsider the locked rivals for USC and UCLA after a few years. I think they’ll go heavy on OSU, MI, PSU, and NE at first with a 3-6-6.
Then they may drop to alternating pairs of locks (3 games in 4 years), then maybe get others out there more (WI, IA, MSU, NW?) or drop them to just 1 locked rival each:
USC
Yr 1. UCLA, OSU, PSU, 50% times the rest
Yr 2. UCLA, OSU, PSU
Yr 3. UCLA, OSU, PSU
Yr 4. UCLA, OSU, PSU
Yr 5. UCLA, MI, NE, 50% times the rest
Yr 6. UCLA, MI, NE
Yr 7. UCLA, OSU, PSU
Yr 8. UCLA, OSU, PSU
UCLA:
USC, MI, NE, 50% times the rest
USC, MI, NE
USC, MI, NE
USC, MI, NE
USC, OSU, PSU, 50% times the rest
USC, OSU, PSU
USC, MI, NE
USC, MI, NE
LikeLike
B10 may not have to reconsider much once ND inevitably joins.
LikeLike
I doubt they’ll be in by 2024.
LikeLike
I was thinking about the scenario where the B10 stays at 16 yet goes 4 deep in selections (Fox+CBS+NBC+Amazon) in some order every week.
In that case, with 72 conference games, I would play 4 conference games each of the first 4 weeks, 5 conference games each of the next 8 weeks, and everybody plays (8 games a week) the last 2 weeks.
So every team would play 2 conference games the first 4 weeks. A nonconf game (typically against a MAC school or FCS) could be scheduled later in the year.
To ensure late games the last 2 weeks, I’d have one of PSU/MSU/UMD/RU visit UCLA Black Friday night and PSU/MSU visit USC on Saturday night when the Trojans don’t host ND.
The week before that, send OSU/UMich/UNL/Wisconsin to visit USC/UCLA.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson on a podcast discussing P12 and B12 expansion. Some good discussion of the options.
LikeLike
Very good and intelligent conversation.
LikeLike
The interesting comment was when he was asked if BYU’s 1984 MNC mattered. He said TV guys have short memories, 10 years or so. Nobody talks about BYU’s 1984 or Colorado’s 1990 MNC. As a long time college football fan, I notice those. Conferences look at potential where that matters. But most fans are not hardcore. And if its a 5 or 6 year TV contract, TV execs only care about what you are doing now, not what you might do in a dozen years.
So a school like Oregon might have good value for TV. Colorado not so much. A school like Baylor or Oklahoma St. has value now.
LikeLike
TV networks are looking for success that is predictable and repeatable. The BYU and Colorado MNCs were neither.
LikeLike
Irrelevant to the point, which was that the 90s don’t matter to TV execs.
In fact, you are kind of proving his point. Colorado was one of the top programs from 1990-to the early 2000s. They ran into the amazing 1994 Nebraska team and suffered their only loss of the season. They argued that they, instead of NU, who they beat 62-36, should have played Miami for the BCS title in 2002. They came close to repeating the MNC twice. You seem unaware of how good CU was.
LikeLike
From 1989-2001 CU had 6 top 10 finishes. In the 90s, they had the 11th highest win %, just behind Ohio St. and just ahead of Kansas St. (you probably didn’t know or remember how good they were) and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
bullet,
Like many schools, CU had a great run but couldn’t sustain it. They were down for about a decade (1978-86) in the 80s, then up for about 20 years, then down again for the past 15+ years. They are #40 in overall W% at 0.575. Before 1978 they were #23 at 0.632. Since 1978, they are #70 at 0.494. 1987-96 was a great decade, then they had a good decade after that, but it was sandwiched by some long droughts.
Consistent success is what separates the kings from the second tier. Most blueblood kings never had losing a decade, or only had 1.
LikeLike
Irrelevant to the point, which was that the 90s don’t matter to TV execs.
An anomalous period of success or failure that was more recent would not matter either — thus, Michigan did not lose its TV value during the years that Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke posted very atypical Michigan records.
LikeLike
There’s different levels of success and different levels of brand building for the purposes of TV.
Nebraska for example has dimmed a bit, but not lost all of its value as a TV “national brand” because it still has the huge fanbase and local intensity which gives it a big game atmosphere any time they host a game. The lack of pro competition helps them in that aspect like Iowa. And of course because they won 3 national championships in the mid 90s and were in the hunt for conference championships under Pelini as they were entering the Big Ten.
Location and proximity to recruiting/athletics brand matter a lot for this discussion.
“Basketball schools” in good locations with good overall athletics brands are high potential schools: UNC, UCLA, Maryland are good examples of that.
They can recruit at a very high level relative to their historical levels of cfb success. Maryland recruits better than Wisconsin despite how much better Wisconsin has been on the field the past 2 decades with a lot of conference championships/BCS/NY6/Rose Bowl appearances. Because location matters…, Maryland’s won the 2nd most blue chip recruits in the Northeast behind only Penn State over the past decade.
UNC is a poster child for this, recruiting better than pretty much everyone else in the ACC not named FSU, Clemson, Miami on a regular basis.
I would say that a school like Oregon has done more to build itself into a sustainable power than a lot of others in similar situations historically (like BYU or Colorado), but given its poor location, it can fall off quickly with a bad coaching hire if it falls off. Still Oregon not having any pro competition is a huge plus unlike say Colorado; Oregon’s fanbase will always be there in the way that Colorado’s won’t.
Stanford’s probably a bit more sustainable than Oregon in my mind because even though it’s not in a recruiting hot bed and has much lower levels of fan support, Stanford will always win a large share of academically minded blue chip recruits given its the #1 academic brand in FBS. That’s an easily activatable advantage.
LikeLike
Colorado was always pretty solid. They were not Northwestern or Kansas St.
Washington has always been pretty solid. But even though they got to the CFP, they really haven’t done much the last decade. Oregon has, so Oregon does really well in TV ratings compared to CU and UW.
Oklahoma St. has been pretty good the last decade and so they are at the top of the nBig 12 in TV ratings. Yet historically, they have been very mediocre.
There are only about 10-15 kings who retain most of their value up or down. For the rest, at least as far as TV is concerned, recent past is important.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34343730/big-12-football-title-game-staying-dallas-att-stadium-2025
The B12 CCG will stay at Jerry World through 2025. Should the new B12 keep it there going forward? Should they rotate it around? Would it make sense to encroach on P12 territory and play in Las Vegas on occasion? What about in FL? Maybe Houston?
My guess is that they stay in Dallas since Jerry World probably offers the most money.
LikeLike
Where else makes sense? JerryWorld is in the footprint and the NFL stadium that has the highest probability of having lots of fans of the schools in the CCG attend. Holding it outside the footprint would be dumb for that reason. KC the only other option but JerryWorld more likely to be closer to potential attending teams.
LikeLike
Houston is another NFL option in the footprint. The occasional game in FL might draw interest, though fewer alumni from most schools are there (BYU, ISU, UC, WV, and UCF have many there).
Las Vegas would be a big to build off of BYU, and try to gain some neutral fans there and keep it from being P12 territory. Plenty of fans might travel to Las Vegas. It’s like the B10 moving the MBB tournament around to NYC and DC. You don’t do it a lot, just once in a while.
LikeLike
The Metroplex is closer to more B12 teams than Houston is. And moving the B12 CCG to LV makes as much sense as the B10 CCG moved to Jersey (even once in a while). There’s a big difference of scale between a basketball tourney and a football CCG. If the B12 moved its MBB tourney to LV (or Orlando) every so often, that would be more reasonable.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/34349492/who-run-college-football-future
Who should run CFB? It is behind a paywall unfortunately. The excerpt below is from the part that is free to see.
Coaches aren’t the only ones contemplating who should run the most lucrative and popular sport in college athletics. There is a growing contingent that suggests the FBS should separate from the NCAA, which currently handles all regulatory functions — like rules, officiating, bowl certification, litigation and enforcement — but doesn’t operate the postseason or receive any revenue from college football. The money from the College Football Playoff is retained by the 10 FBS conferences, and schools use the money how they choose.
“The fact is that the NCAA has all of this responsibility, yet it has no resources with respect to FBS football,” said Tom McMillen, the president and CEO of the LEAD1 Association, which represents the athletic directors in the FBS.
This summer, LEAD1 organized a working group of 38 athletic directors representing all 10 FBS conferences and one independent to study the idea of separating college football from the NCAA. With the help of North Carolina’s Center for Research in Intercollegiate Athletics, LEAD1 developed a survey it released this week and expects the results by the end of the month. It will review the findings at its September meeting in Washington, D.C.
“We have had three calls and each involved passionate discussion and debate about the future of college football,” said Erianne Weight, director of the Center for Research in Intercollegiate Athletics. “The very clear consensus is that the status quo is no longer acceptable.”
Many people call for 1 person in charge, but I haven’t seen that work in sports for almost 100 years. Owners long since became more powerful than the commissioners in pros sports, and schools aren’t giving power to 1 person. Nobody will ever believe that person isn’t biased.
Before getting someone in charge, the need to get a decent set of rules in place. That may take congressional action.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-ad-says-remaining
Canzano reporting on the prospects for the P12. Take it FWIW, but he says he’s passing on what ADs have told him.
I’ve talked with more than half of the Pac-12 Conference athletic directors since the defection of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten was announced.
Maybe I’m naive, but none of them sound imminently concerned about the Pac-12 being further poached. Not two weeks ago. And not earlier this week. But I reached out to one of the South Division ADs on Friday to check in anyway. In the course of conversation, I asked whether the Big 12 had ever made contact.
Was that ever a thing?
Is it still?
The answer came back: “We’re focused on our task, working with incumbent media, and other nine schools, that I don’t have time nor attention for the Big 12 noise.”
What about the University of Arizona?
Are they a candidate to be poached?
“They are right there with us,” the AD told me.
Again, I could be a sucker. But I’m here to serve as a conduit between the entities I cover and my readers. I’m only going to give you sourced, in-depth reporting and analysis. I’ll tell you what I know. And right now, I have a multitude of Pac-12 ADs all essentially saying the same thing — they are galvanized and believe the conference has good options. Like you, I’m eager to learn what those are.
…
How will the Pac-12 members stay competitive?
Said one North Division AD: “Like we always have. We’ll just have to spend a larger percentage of what we receive on football and men’s basketball. We’ll make a larger investment, percentage-wise. That’s what UCLA was going to have to do if it stayed in the conference. That’s what we’ll all do — go heavy in football — because that’s where the biggest returns will always be.”
The University of Oregon, for example, spent $24.5 million on football in the last fiscal year (2021). That figure was skewed by the pandemic, but I’m curious to see if the Ducks and some other contenders ramp up spending in pursuit of the College Football Playoff. Also, I’ll follow where Oregon, and other Pac-12 universities, might cut back — Olympic sports.
Had UCLA stayed in the Pac-12, it would have been faced with that exact dilemma. I don’t think the Bruins would have dropped their prestigious track and field program. But I doubt UCLA would have funded the program as well as it will after the defection to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
With NIL, the amount spent by the college could be deceptive. Oregon could spend $25 million on football, but Phil Knight could fund $20 million in NIL. Oregon would probably do great without increasing school expenditures.
Somewhere here in this thread, it was posted that Clemson spent more on football than Ohio State, though OSU had many more sports and a much bigger overall athletic budget.
Oregon can keep going as long as Phil Knight/Nike money is there in large quantities. How long can Clemson or other non P2 schools keep spending, without huge outside support?
LikeLike
With NIL, the amount spent by the college could be deceptive. Oregon could spend $25 million on football, but Phil Knight could fund $20 million in NIL. Oregon would probably do great without increasing school expenditures.
NIL is really just compensating the players. The program itself still has expenses. Phil is undoubtedly shelling out for NIL, but he also shells out for things like weight rooms, uniforms, coach salaries, etc.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-pac-12
Canzano’s mailbag. It’s always interesting to see what P12 fans are thinking, plus Canzano drops a few tidbits. I skipped some MLB and NBA questions.
Q: What are the odds the Big Ten or SEC adds more schools that fit as institutions and good markets, even if not great football of late? Colorado, ASU, Washington, Stanford may not raise Big Ten profits just yet, but they’re great fits otherwise. If Rutgers and Maryland did it, why not? — @cjmfour
A: The Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland years ago to capture New York (7.45 million television households) and Washington, D.C. (2.45 million). Any expansion candidate would now have to generate $70 million-plus in projected media rights revenue for justification. Of those you mentioned, Stanford is the most interesting. Academically attractive, great brand, and 2.65 million TV households in the Bay Area. However, the projected media value of Stanford only falls somewhere around $38 million, according to the experts and analysts I consulted with. The other Big Ten members would have to be OK with subsidizing Stanford.
Q: Is the Big Ten playing hardball to get the likes of UW/UO/Cal/Stanford to get desperate and agree to an unequal revenue sharing deal below their fair value? — @TomeiTyler
A: The Big Ten already gobbled up UCLA and USC and it’s full… for now. It’s also finalizing its media rights packages (which cause a pause) and it will wait to see what Notre Dame does in the next 12-18 months (independent or no?). I think the Irish will stay independent as long as they believe they have access to the playoff and a good TV deal with NBC. I suspect those programs you mentioned would love to be with the “haves.” Maybe this process softens them up from a negotiating standpoint, but it’s more likely that the Big Ten is just going to exhale for a bit and see how this works out.
…
Q: Oregon is a household name in college football. Aren’t these experts being short sighted here? Shouldn’t they be looking at the opportunity here? If Oregon joined the Big Ten and got another $20-30 million per year, how much more relevant would they be? — @jbeam22
A: The math doesn’t work right now. The Big Ten members are going to receive $70 million to $100 million in distributions from their conference. If the Big Ten took Oregon, it would have to do it at a deep discount to justify it. The Ducks need to continue to invest heavily in football and make the playoff in football. I’m told by Pac-12 sources that an uneven distribution of bowl game revenue and units from the men’s basketball NCAA Tournament is on the table. Basically, if you win big in football and basketball, you get a larger share of the proceeds generated by your success. Previously, those winnings were split evenly among members. Oregon would benefit greatly from this new model, if it happens.
Q: A few weeks ago a alliance between the Pac-12 and the ACC sounded like the best option for both conferences going forward. I haven’t heard any talk of the alliance lately and heard no mention at Pac-12 media day of the ACC. — @dpstang
A: I’m told a “loose partnership” is still very much on the table. It solves financial problems for the ACC and Pac-12 and allows ESPN to get the Pacific Time Zone and a pile of new content for ESPN+.
…
Q: What are you reporting on Pac-12 valuations? And compared to the Big 12? Also status update on the negotiation window? — @vakaviti
A: The Pac-12’s 30-day, exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and Fox expired Aug. 4. Industry experts did not expect a deal to be announced in the early window. Former Fox Sports Networks president Bob Thompson told me, “I think the conference will be wise and want to see who is on the outside looking in when the Big Ten option ends. There’s going to be some folks who expressed an interest in collegiate football who aren’t going to get it in the Big Ten deal.”
The Pac-12 will slow play this, then eat what’s leftover in the market. I believe the Pac-12 has some advantages over the Big 12 right now. Kickoffs in the Pacific Time Zone are especially attractive to ESPN, for example. Also, the current Pac-12 Network content is coveted by ESPN+. I think the Pac-12 will eclipse the Big 12 for those reasons. But ideally, you’d like both conferences to do well on the media rights front to ensure the overall health of college football.
See Colin? You accuse Canzano of spreading rumors about ND independence, but here he is denying it.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson agrees with me. The P12 extending their exclusive window doesn’t make sense on the surface.
LikeLike
Unless ESPN told them they’d come back with a much bigger offer if they don’t get anything with the Big Ten…
LikeLike
But ESPN can do that after the window expires, too. All the end of the window does is let others start talking to the P12. What did ESPN offer/promise the P12 that makes it worth not being able to talk to NBC, CBS, Turner, Amazon, Apple, or anyone else?
LikeLike
Expansion. Just when I thought I was out…it pulls me back in! There I was, huffin’ & puffin’ my way around the Runyon Cayon loop, listening to a Spotify playlist, than what comes on but a spot for a new podcast. ‘CANZANO & WILNER’. If There’s such a thing as expansion vertigo I think I experienced it. Maybe it was the hilarious rockstar introduction or the fact that, following Canzano’s glowing intro of Wilner, Wilmer had to try to return the favor. 😂. Highly recommended. These guys are livin’ large on expansion mania.
LikeLike
They’ve known each other for a long time. They both cover the P12. They were likely to do a podcast together no matter what. Realignment interest may have sped up the decision, but they started discussing it before USC and UCLA moved.
If nothing else, it’s a good way to know what the west coast fans are thinking about things.
LikeLike
Canzano is very Oregon-centric, so one has to keep that in mind. Only from an Oregon perspective do schools like Boise St, UNLV, and Houston creep into Pac-12 expansion conversations. Wilner seems to have a broader perspective, if perhaps not an inside channel to what the Oregon schools think. Wilner also will likely get the scoop first if a NorCal school makes a move.
LikeLike
Yup. They’re both Pacific northwest guys. Wilner does a really good job covering the PAC12, but in terms of being really plugged-in to the individual schools I care about, Scott Reiss and Bill Plaschke are probably the best.
LikeLike
Ugh, Scott Reiss. He is the bane of my Stanford fandom existence. Absolutely the worst play-by-play announcer EVER! Makes Joe Starkey (Cal), who I used to consider the worst ever, sound good.
LikeLike
Wilner’s perspective always seems more Cal-centric while Canzano’s seems more Oregon State-centric.
Of course, that’s a drastic oversimplification; each has access to top-level (AD and conference-level) officials throughout the conference at this point.
But yeah, they’ve definitely been in the camp of “protect the Pac-12 at all costs” mainly because they likely have connections to schools that would be left behind, which is why they’re always concerned about the Corner 4 leaving for the Big 12.
LikeLike
Big Ten now after $1.5 billion in media rights.
https://frontofficesports.com/big-ten-media-rights-1-5-b/
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-the-price-for-notre-dame
How much does ND need to stay independent?
Fox’s deal with the Big Ten is expected to result in distributions to conference members in the $75 million to $80 million range.
So what happens with Notre Dame and NBC?
I turned to Fox Sports Networks president Bob Thompson for the answer. He’s negotiated a number of big-time media rights deals with a variety of sports conferences over the years.
“They have always taken a bit less TV money than others to retain their independence,” Thompson said. “As the gap widens, though, I have to think that they will have to get a significant increase to make it worthwhile to continue as an independent.”
Notre Dame’s current deal with NBC is backloaded. The Irish receive $22 million this year and will get $24.75 million from NBC in the final year of the deal. Notre Dame also receives $12 million-a-year in distributions from the ACC, where it’s a member in all sports except football and ice hockey.
Total take in the final year of the deal: $36.75 million
The Big Ten may covet Notre Dame and its golden brand, but as long as the Irish have access to the football playoff and a competitive pile of media rights revenue, they don’t need the conference affiliation. But what does Notre Dame need in total annual distributions to justify being independent?
Thompson’s estimate: $78 million in 2026.
Plus, four percent annual increases.
That’s the bar the Big Ten’s $1.25 billion deal with Fox is setting. If you assume the ACC distributions continue to rise in a way that is consistent with the market (3-4 percent annually), then NBC needs to increase its payment to a minimum of $65.7 million in 2026 to keep Notre Dame happy.
…
What does Thompson expect to happen?
“So as long as Notre Dame can get NBC and ACC payouts that get it in the mid-$78 million per year and they have a continued, guaranteed path to College Football Playoff I really expect them to sit out this round of realignment,” he said.
—-
The Pac-12’s exclusive, 30-day negotiating window with ESPN and Fox expired quietly last week.
…
This sparked some to believe the 30-day period might have been extended. But that doesn’t make sense. The early and exclusive negotiating window doesn’t benefit the conference, it benefits the network partners.
The Pac-12 would never go for that.
Remember, the Pac-12 accelerated the negotiating window by holding an emergency meeting of the Pac-12 CEO Group in early July. The conference voted and announced it was “immediately” opening that 30-day period. Not so it could wait and then extend the window, but because the Pac-12 wanted to get through the 30-day period and get its media rights to the open market and other bidders ASAP.
It’s possible that ESPN and the Pac-12 are involved in a deep, complex negotiation involving a loose partnership with the ACC. It’s also possible that the Pac-12 is selling its in-house network to ESPN for use on ESPN+. That stuff would take time. But you don’t need to be in an exclusive negotiating window to have those conversations.
The more likely scenario is that the 30-day window expired and that the Pac-12 is now legally shopping itself to other media partners. Also, it’s probably waiting for the Big Ten to finish eating and set the market.
LikeLike
Canzano wrote, “I suspect the SEC would secretly like the Irish to stay independent as well.
I would not even consider it a secret. No one except the Big Ten wants the Irish in the Big Ten. For that matter, no one except the ACC wants Notre Dame in the ACC.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC cares what Notre Dame does. They are comfortable enough with themselves.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC to run out and grab three ACC schools just to keep up, but nobody wants the Big Ten to get stronger (except the Big Ten), and that includes the SEC. They would prefer an independent ND, for sure.
LikeLike
Why didn’t Canzano just write that its possible the Pac is secretly negotiating to get Notre Dame, FSU, Miami and Clemson to join the conference and get $100 million a year in media rights?
Some of that “its possible” stuff” just sounds really ridiculous to speculate about.
LikeLike
bullet,
I believe those examples he gave were in response to what some reporters have speculated might explain why both sides would want to extend the window. His point is that even if super secret deep negotiations were ongoing, they don’t require an exclusive window.
Note that he does not believe the window was extended at all, unlike Wilner (and then Dodds, who agreed with Wilner).
LikeLike
NE AD Trev Alberts briefly discusses realignment on radio.
LikeLike
McMurphy said if the Big 10 takes two more, the Pac folds. I suspect if they take one more, the 4 corners join the Big 12 and the remaining 5 scramble to figure out what to do.
LikeLike
The Pac-10 should take BYU and SDS. They don’t want a solid Big XII brand right in the middle of their conference.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/doublet973.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/a3/8a3baa6c-d389-11ec-bab3-3ba30228770b/627fae4d953f8.image.png?resize=1200%2C780
LikeLike
1) What good would Brigham Young do for the Pac, even if it could leave the Big XII?
2) Do you honestly expect Berkeley and Stanford to do an about-face and welcome BYU?
And for McMurphy’s comment, which is the “one” the B1G would pilfer from the Pac, if Notre Dame stays an indy (as is increasingly expected now) and Stanford won’t be the “+1”? I suppose it could pursue UW as a way to pry open other Pac members it wants (and aid the Big XII in the process), but why?
LikeLike
With the reports that the B1G might be seeking a $1.5 billion contract, the price of entry probably just got even higher.
Meanwhile the SEC is a wonderful southeastern conference with great southeastern teams, but that it is. They will never go west of Texas, or north of Virginia (excepting Missouri, which is already in the league). Other than ND, what other geographical move can the SEC make? Of course, their geographical proximity is one of their bragging points.
On the other hand, there is permanently only one national conference, with the NY, LA, and Chicago markets. No other league could ever approach the spread of the B1G. And even if the SEC (or ACC) wanted, there are no other teams available in any of those huge markets. Yes, the B1G is not presently in Texas or FL, but one cannot have everything.
Over time, will that give the B1G and advantage that the SEC cannot meet?
LikeLike
The UVa/UNC combo, that’s what (whether or not they’re aligned with Duke). The SEC may get stronger football programs in Virginia Tech and NCSU to compensate, but far weaker brands.
LikeLike
AAU membership and its academic benefits will be the defining factor in UVa and UNC going B1G, while Tech and State get the SEC consolation prize.
LikeLike
UNC and UVA have done just fine in the ACC. They ARE in the AAU. Going to the Big 10 doesn’t benefit them academically. And being in the SEC hasn’t harmed Florida, Georgia or Vanderbilt.
There may be cultural reasons for wanting to join the Big 10, but there may also be cultural reasons for wanting to be in the SEC. UNC and UVA really aren’t like the Big 10 megaschools. Maryland is. UCLA is. The state schools in the ACC tend to be smaller than those in the Big 10.
LikeLike
I would agree with Bullet. Virginia and UNC have more a more public/private east coast appeal. They’re a perfect fit in the ACC but could see them going in any direction.
Florida State seems more like B1G size minus the AAU.
LikeLike
AAU membership and its academic benefits will be the defining factor in UVa and UNC going B1G, while Tech and State get the SEC consolation prize.
No school (that I am aware of) has switched conferences primarily for academic reasons. A conference is a sports organization. The decision will be driven primarily by athletics revenue.
I am less clear on whether the SEC would want a consolation prize in any state. They will have better data than us, but NC State feels dilutive to me.
LikeLike
vp0819: “What good would Brigham Young do for the Pac, even if it could leave the Big XII?”
LikeLike
Let me know when Utah’s population approaches that of California, Florida or Texas.
LikeLike
Reread my comment. “I” suspect if the Big 10 takes 1, the 4 corners leave.
Obviously, the Big 10 would take 1 to go with Notre Dame. Don’t think it really matters who as far as the Pac is concerned.
LikeLike
First, the BiG will probably delay taking any more teams from the Pac-12 unless Notre Dame moves, precisely because of the destabilization potential.
Second, the 4 Corner schools are to the Big 12 what ND is to the Big Ten. The 4 Corner schools know they will always be welcome in the Big 12, so they will move there as a last resort – not in a panic.
LikeLike
The 4 Corner schools know they will always be welcome in the Big 12, so they will move there as a last resort – not in a panic.
This is a good point that isn’t made often enough. When a party knows it can always move, there is no reason to rush. Even without Stanford, the Pac still has Oregon and Washington, which are better than any program in the Big XII. You might as well wait and see what the media partners offer.
But it is all a moot point if Notre Dame remains independent for this cycle, as most people expect.
LikeLike
Didn’t the P12 think the B12 schools were available to them any time they wanted just last year?
There is no need to rush since it looks like it will be several years before the next raid on the PAC but “always” is a long time. Does Utah add much value if you have BYU? AZ if you have ASU? If there is another B10 raid and Oregon is left behind will the B12 find Oregon more attractive than either Utah or AZ? Will the B12 want to expand beyond 16?
LikeLike
The 4 corners don’t have huge value. Its not like adding a Texas, Oklahoma or USC.
There’s no guarantee the Big 12 will still be interested a year from now and certainly not after they sign their new deal. Plus if the ACC breaks up, the Big 12 may be more interested in going east.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’m sure Frank and all the other lawyers that have analyzed public GORs, plus all those lawyers working for the ACC schools who want out of the GOR, appreciate you telling them how stupid they are.
Again, it is not possible to analyze the GOR in a vacuum, which any lawyer will tell you. So anybody who claims to have “analyzed public GORs” without seeing all the related documents either isn’t telling the truth or doesn’t understand contract law. And from what I understand, the important documents are kept under lock and key, limited copies, etc., at the ACC office . . . for the reason you state, to avoid state FOIA requests. So the universe of people who have seen all the pertinent documents is actually rather limited. And at this point we don’t know what those few people may be discussing with ESPN. So to imply that decisions have been made that this GOR is impermeable is wrong. We don’t know that, and the few who do aren’t talking.
If you haven’t seen the exit fee, then you haven’t paid attention. The exit fee has been cited several times online. Someone linked the ACC bylaws here just a few days ago.
You are correct, and it’s 3x the annual ACC operating budget. When Maryland left that was $51 million, and the ACC settled for 2/3 of that. Call it $75 million now, but that’s just an estimate based on inflation. (I’ve seen reporters throwing around $150 million, but I haven’t seen where that number comes from or how it’s being calculated.) In any event, whatever the true amount is, THAT is the entirety of what anybody KNOWS a departing member owes. And even that is subject to litigation inasmuch as liquidated damages clauses (which is what the exit fee is) routinely are.
LikeLike
If you want to keep believing this, go ahead. Apparently you need to feel superior to all the lawyers who have spent time on this and reached different conclusions (no, secretly they agree with you and have a double secret probation plan to escape the GOR that’s just taking them 5-10 years to execute).
LikeLike
Anybody who claims to have “analyzed public GORs” without seeing all the related documents either isn’t telling the truth or doesn’t understand contract law.
Presumably including you, since you have not seen them either.
We don’t know that, and the few who do aren’t talking.
Almost every conference realignment story relies on anonymous sources, so you don’t know who is talking. But those who do speak on the record say the GOR is unbreakable except at nose-bleed costs, and the facts speak for themselves: nobody has left a GOR early yet. Never. Not even once.
LikeLike
The SEC and Big Ten have both made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in trying to get into legal issues by having schools break GoRs. That would open them up to legal liability possibly in the form of tortious/intentional interference to the conference/schools left behind.
They are only planning to add schools when they can exit unencumbered (or if the schools can negotiate an early exit).
That’s a reality that isn’t mentioned often enough.
There’s not going to be any jailbreak in the ACC. Those schools will have to wait until 2031-2034 to announce 2036 exits (depending on how long they want to publicly be lame ducks).
Nobody has even come close to challenging a GoR, Texas/OU and USC/UCLA are publicly saying they will fulfill all obligations to their current conferences before leaving.
Maybe Texas/OU are able to negotiate a way out in 2024 at a higher cost than the current exit fee if a 1 year GoR buyout is included, but that’s about it.
GoRs have nothing to do with television contracts and aren’t dependent on them. The Big Ten’s GoR has been much further out than the main TV deals since it was signed.
The biggest problem is just that the school potentially challenging a GoR has everything to lose through the GoR period if they lose their media rights fees. In many ways it would cause worse damage than just exiting when the GoR ends, which is already painful enough for many of these administrators.
These administrators want to pull off conference switches in the middle of the night. Maybe fight an exit fee in court after the move is already announced.
Fighting a conference in court to exit a GoR before announcing realignment just doesn’t match up to how these moves go.
LikeLike
The SEC and Big Ten have both made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in trying to get into legal issues by having schools break GoRs.
I do not recall that they have been so specific. All they have said, is that it is the responsibility of the incoming school to meet their obligations to the conference they are leaving behind, whatever they might be.
I remember when Jim Delany was asked about Maryland’s exit fee, and he said, “That’s between them and the ACC,” or words to that effect. (There was no grant of rights in their case.)
However, the thrust of your post remains 100% correct. If ever there were two schools who would love to get out of a grant of rights early, it’s Texas and Oklahoma. And yet, as of today they are still planning to ride out their Big XII membership to the middle of 2025. If they cannot do it 3 years early, how the heck is FSU or Clemson going to do it 14 years early.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think I’m more inferring the intent (as far as the next 10 years goes).
Sankey’s most clear statement on grants of rights was when he talked about schools having grants of rights and he said “we’re not going to get in the middle of those” during SEC media days.
Big Ten obviously has a grant of rights in place (so it makes little sense to weaken its own grant of rights by challenging another conference’s; I can imagine schools like Purdue or Northwestern would be very hesitant to start blowing up grant of rights agreements knowing that the Big Ten has one in place to lock its member schools in).
As you said, Texas/OU over the past 12 months have had every single possible reason to search for a reason to exit earlier but can’t.
At most, Texas/OU may be able to buy a year off if they pay even more to the Big 12. Say they agree to not challenge the Big 12 taking $80 million in terms of keeping their final 2 years and Texas/OU each give an extra $20 million to $40 million to the Big 12 bringing their total exit fees up to the $100 million to $120 million range.
Even then that may not be enough because FOX/ESPN (primarily FOX in this situation since ESPN would be happy to have an earlier move) also have a say. FOX can tell the Big 12 that they’ll reduce their payment substantially in that 2025 year if Texas/OU leave early.
And for FOX, they probably have an incentive to make 2024 all about USC/UCLA to the Big Ten instead of sharing the spotlight with ESPN promoting Texas/OU joining the SEC. That’s another consideration at play there.
All of which is why this discussion is so difficult; there’s a lot of different actors involved.
And the discussion is this complex for Texas/OU maybe trying to get out of a GoR just 1 year early; nobody’s even coming close to discussing buying out 14 years off a GoR in the ACC.
LikeLike
z33k: “And the discussion is this complex for Texas/OU maybe trying to get out of a GoR just 1 year early; nobody’s even coming close to discussing buying out 14 years off a GoR in the ACC.”
While I agree that it is very unlikely anyone will attempt to challenge the GOR, let alone successfully combat it, I do wonder if the extreme variables of the ACC’s situation may ultimately drive the attempt. Texas/OU and USC/UCLA haven’t challenged it in part because of the strength of the GOR, but likely also because the time frame doesn’t create the level of desperation that makes it worthwhile.
If I’m FSU, which has already seen financial issues over recent years, and I knew that the B10 and/or SEC would take me today if I could only get out of the ACC, does that make me desperate enough to attempt it?
As has been discussed here in the past, the teams in the ACC may look a hell of a lot different in 14 years if they’re behind the SEC/B10 teams $100 million every year. Maybe that doesn’t affect the teams with no SEC/B10 peers in their states (like UNC), or teams where the disparity is already so great (like GT vs UGA), but FSU and Miami could have a lot to lose by letting UF earn that much more every single year for a decade and a half.
I doubt it’ll actually change anything, but all the same.
LikeLike
I think you bring up a really good point in that we’ve never seen desperation on the level that we’re going to see among ACC programs that believe they belong on the top shelf of college football: FSU, Clemson, Miami in particular. And it will be impactful even more on all ACC teams if there’s revenue sharing or other ways by which the Big Ten/SEC can use their financial advantage to drive a direct competitive edge that affects recruiting/performance.
That could have big downsides for UNC/UVA/Duke basketball/lacrosse or whatever other programs those schools care about…
In a couple years, the financial differences will reach a level that they’ve never even been close to, when you have the Big Ten and SEC handing out $100 million per school while the ACC payouts are barely 50% of those levels and falling behind more every year.
So then the question is what to do about it?
And that’s where you realize pretty much all the options are bad. I agree with pretty much everyone who says that conference dissolution is impossible. The “left behind” schools can pretty easily disqualify schools from voting to dissolve the conference by removing them from being able to manage conference affairs once they’re known to be exiting.
Trying to get 8 schools in a secret pact to vote to dissolve the conference seems unlikely because that’d require 8 schools to have landing spots known beforehand. And that just gets into a host of other thorny issues.
At best, the only real outcome here is they try to cause chaos by announcing an exit as early as 2026-2029 but what would that realistically achieve? Yes everyone else would start opening discussions with the SEC or Big Ten but it wouldn’t really lead to a faster path out even if 7 other schools wanted to exit since they wouldn’t be able to dissolve the conference given the disinterested schools can disqualify them from voting on conference matters.
Really feels like all they can do is just suck it up until 2031 or so and then get to work on exiting and trying to keep their fans and recruits excited about a 2036 move, while hoping that the accrued financial differences don’t leave them too far behind to quickly catch up.
LikeLike
z33k: “Really feels like all they can do is just suck it up until 2031 or so and then get to work on exiting and trying to keep their fans and recruits excited about a 2036 move, while hoping that the accrued financial differences don’t leave them too far behind to quickly catch up.”
Yeah I don’t really think anyone will really attack the GOR, I just think the extreme length of that contract could make it more likely rather than less.
Given how long litigation can take to clear up, and the fact the SEC had no interest in bringing them on until it was done, OU/UT were likely looking at three years regardless. So why burn bridges, take further negative PR, spend a bunch of money and get your dirty laundry aired in the process? Same for USC/UCLA. Losing a couple football seasons may be revenue lost, but these transitions take time anyway so adding litigation to it was unnecessary.
But for the ACC, and specifically FSU/Miami/Clemson, that is a different equation. And maybe for UNC/Duke to a lesser extent. VT, NCState, and GT might be content to be in the national football conversation every few years, but FSU/Miami/Clemson have higher asperations.
14 years is a really long time to let in-state rivals have a 2-3x revenue advantage (or more by year 14); particularly for those three schools, where you know UF and South Carolina are likely to direct those funds back into football more than maybe a Pac12 or B10 team would. Or, in FSU/Miami’s case, where they live in a state that produces a ton of football talent but also the entire SEC (and a lot of the B10) already recruits heavily.
LikeLike
It makes sense that a few ACC schools might be more inclined to challenge a bad deal with 14 years to run. But I have not even heard of a decent legal theory that a challenge could be based on.
LikeLike
Marc: “It makes sense that a few ACC schools might be more inclined to challenge a bad deal with 14 years to run. But I have not even heard of a decent legal theory that a challenge could be based on.”
I’m unsure they could fight it successfully in court. I’m not a lawyer and it certainly seems like lawyers who make a lot of money dealing with contract law aren’t lining up to take their shot.
That said, 14 years is also a real long time to have a dysfunctional conference with 5 or more members chafing at the restrictions. The ACC has those schools by the balls (granted, by their own choice originally), so I don’t see what they can really do. But if the schools are actively rebelling (in every way but legally) it might make just doing day to day business difficult eventually. But, maybe the ACC doesn’t care if they start publicly complaining.
LikeLike
Given the potential downside, it’s hard to imagine any lawyer advising an ACC school would advise them to choose a path that involves litigating a GoR with that length of time remaining.
The previous realignment lawsuits that we’ve seen have dealt with exit fees and attempts to speed up moves faster than required by exit notification bylaws.
But there’s pretty clear upper limits to those in terms of the maximum fee as the stated exit fee. Those situations almost always end up settled for less than the maximum.
Maryland, Rutgers, and plenty of others paid around 60-70% of their stated exit fees after their exit fee lawsuits were settled.
The problem is we’ve never seen anything like a GoR litigated.
Realistically, you’d think there’d be a settlement but the figure could be something crazy like $300-400 million for 12-14 years left on the GoR. And that’s on top of the 3 years of conference distributions as exit fee.
Maybe we see it challenged in the early 2030s by FSU if they get desperate enough, but given how harsh the exit fee already is, how many schools would want to risk adding an additional $100-200 million payment to get our of 4 years of GoR on top of the exit fee.
That’s really the problem here. The numbers just don’t work, it’s already going to be extremely expensive to leave the ACC, why add another burden like the GoR when you’re looking at $120-180 million in exit fee already?
Big Ten and SEC will likely help the schools they want pay off those exit fees by forwarding them distributions, but doubt they have the stomach to start adding on GoR settlements.
Big Ten and SEC may need to forward $150-180 million to each school they add from the ACC in the mid-2030s to keep them whole.
That’s the biggest reason why I don’t see the ACC schools getting help until the GoR is close to done but even then why pay another payment on top of the exit fee?
LikeLike
Unless there is an extra penalty clause in the event of a challenge to a GOR, the prime situation to attempt a challenge would be that which was mentioned in the z33k comment, TX/OU trying to break it one year early. They do not have that much to lose, since the money they pay to the Big 12 would be at least partially replaced with extra year 1 SEC income. Despite this, even that seems unlikely.
While the GOR and other docs are locked up in ACC offices, clearly every school has access to review them. It is simply inconceivable that FSU and others have not had the best sports contract lawyers in the country (Proskauer, Skadden, Williams and Connolly, etc., ????) review the GOR and nothing seems to be happening. I do not think that the famous three lawyer law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe in Tallahassee is counsel to FSU regarding these matters. (I only mention FSU seems that is one school with guaranteed immediate offers from both the SEC and B1G. There may be other schools too which will get immediate multiple offers.)
If there were the smallest loopholes in the GOR, I would expect that it would have leaked at some point in the last year.
As has been said in this thread more than once, the GOR protects the weaker teams in each league – for good reason. None of them want to see a GOR successfully attacked.
LikeLike
The idea that GOR’s for any conference are locked up in the conference headquarters is nonsense. That is not how lawyers operate. It is certain that each school and theirs lawyers have complete copies of all the contracts. This is the only protection against someone changing the contracts.
I bet all the TV networks involved, and their lawyers, also have complete copies.
LikeLike
The reason that everyone claims that the GOR are only in the league offices is that any public university would need to produce the contract pursuant to a FOIA request. Is this actually the case? I do not know, but it is certainly commonly accepted to be the case.
The ACC GOR was a big secret for years until last month. So, there was a leak. Here it is: https://www.cbs17.com/sports/college-sports/these-4-sheets-of-paper-hold-the-acc-together-inside-the-leagues-grant-of-rights/
LikeLike
By the way, that it the GOR that expires in 2027. The extension to 2036 is not available. From that I assume (yes dangerous) that attempts to get the update have not been successful.
LikeLike
On a new topic, how about a Big Ivy Challenge in hockey modelled after the ACC – Big Ten Challenge in basketball? The Ivy League has six members that play hockey – Harvard, Dartmouth, Cornell, Yale, Princeton, and Brown – and the Big Ten also has six plus ND. To balance at seven each, the Ivy could include Army as a ringer or we could keep the Ivy at six and do uneven rotations like the ACC and Big Ten now do in hoops. These challenge games could be good programming scheduled on Friday nights throughout October and November. College hockey season begins in early October.
Another option is a season-opening tournament. College hockey has a couple of ‘ice breaker’ type tournaments but they consist of four teams only and are nothing like the big early season tournaments in basketball. The Big Ten and Ivy League could start one up with alternate sites in Boston/NY City and Chicago/Detroit each year. Seems like a lot of quality programming for the BTN. FYI, the Ivy League belongs to the ECAC Conference in hockey and their games are streamed on ESPN+.
LikeLike
Love the idea, Colin! I went to my share of Princeton games at historic Baker Rink when I lived in New Jersey, and I’d love to see the Tigers play Minnesota, Penn State face Cornell, Wisconsin take on Dartmouth, etc. And since the B1G likes to promote itself as the Ivy equivalent for state flagships/land-grants, it makes ideal sense.
LikeLike
Not sure if this has already been shared, but it’s looking like ESPN may be left out of the Big Ten’s new media rights package: https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1556800899430825985?t=BPi3MdUFty1AN-h8dDjVtQ&s=19
LikeLike
Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say they may be opting out of participating in the package.
LikeLike
Big Ten media rights: What we know as negotiations enter final stretch
https://theathletic.com/3488621/2022/08/08/big-ten-media-rights-facts/
In addition to Fox, which had locked up Big Ten rights months ago, the conference is likely to partner with both CBS and NBC. Such deals, if finalized, could result in the following Saturday slate: a noon ET game on Fox, a 3:30 p.m. ET game on CBS and primetime on NBC. Multiple sources involved in the negotiations have reiterated over the past month that the Big Ten has prioritized exclusive windows throughout the process.
Sports Business Journal first reported the developments and noted that ESPN is still negotiating with the Big Ten, so there is still a chance the network will end up with a package. If ESPN does not end up with any Big Ten football and basketball games in this round of negotiations, it will be historic. ESPN has carried Big Ten games for the last 40 years; it has shared rights with Fox in the current deal, which is set to expire in 2023.
The Big Ten is also expected to add a streaming package, though it is not yet clear if that will go to Amazon or Apple, a source told The Athletic. Both companies have significantly increased their investment in live sports programming in the past year.
—
If the Big Ten were to move on from ESPN, this would add quite a bit of fuel to the fire brewing between ESPN and Fox. ESPN has exclusive rights to the SEC, and Fox would have primary rights to the Big Ten — so, the rivals would each be backing a different horse as the two 16-team conferences are set to pull away from their peers by the end of the decade. What could that mean for programming decisions? Framing? Future media rights tied to an expanded College Football Playoff?
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren opposed early efforts to expand the CFP last winter, in part because CFP expansion prior to the end of the current contract (which expires in 2026) meant that ESPN would have an exclusive negotiating window. Warren has long advocated for the CFP to have multiple media partners, which many in the industry have taken to mean Fox getting involved.
What Warren has envisioned for college football’s premier postseason event is akin to the NFL playoffs: Multiple media partners broadcasting different rounds and investing more in their coverage of the sport year-round to support that.
—
If ESPN doesn’t get a Big Ten package, you’d have to think this bodes well for both the Pac-12 and Big 12, whose rights are coming up next. The Pac-12 opened its exclusive negotiating window with ESPN early in the aftermath of USC and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten.
What is perhaps equally — if not more — interesting is how Notre Dame fits into these developments. Could NBC’s relationship with the Big Ten help push the Irish toward joining the conference? With longtime rival USC and a footprint that now stretches from Los Angeles to New York City, the Big Ten believes it has never been more attractive to the independent Irish. The checks that the conference is about to hand out to its members thanks to this new media deal won’t hurt either. Multiple outlets have reported that the Big Ten is seeking to eclipse $1 billion in rights fees per year in its new deal.
LikeLike
With 16 teams, there are 8 games during the conference season (unless they adopt the SEC/ACC approach of mixing in ooc during the conference season). 3 will be on BTN. If you have exclusive slots for Fox, CBS and NBC, that leaves 2 other games. Where do they go?
They have talked about 10:30, but I can’t imagine them forcing USC and UCLA to do more than 2 night games. So that still leaves 2 games most weeks.
Looked at a couple of weeks last year (weeks 11 & 12). One week there was noon ABC, 3:30 ABC, 2:00 FS1, 2 BTN games at noon and 2 BTN games at 3:30. The other week there was noon ABC, 3:30 ABC, 4:00 Fox, noon ESPN 2 and 1 BTN game at noon and 1 BTN game at 3:30.
They aren’t filling that night slot on BTN necessarily.
LikeLike
If you have exclusive slots for Fox, CBS and NBC, that leaves 2 other games. Where do they go?
FS1 and FS2 and the streamer to be named. Most of the extra football must be going to FS1, with early season FCS stinkers on FS2.
Basketball is another facet of dropping ESPN. ESPN used to carry a lot of B1G basketball across ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. FS1 and FS2 must be taking on a huge amount of B1G hoops.
FS1 and FS2 are the winners here. I’m not sure if that is good for the B1G.
The FOX/CBS/NBC model seems to be a good idea. We will see about the streaming, maybe that will take care of one conference game per week.
LikeLike
greg,
The B10 doesn’t allow FS2 games now, and I don’t think they will in the future either. Maybe for OOC clunkers, like when ESPNU gets games now. But I think that after FS1, it’ll be BTN or streaming.
FS2 is a black hole. Any games there are lost opportunities, and thus bad for B10.
LikeLike
bullet,
I think when they say exclusive windows, they meant it’s just the B10 on that network at that time. So Fox’s Big Noon game is always B10, followed by the B10 on CBS at 3:30, then B10 at 8:00 on NBC. No more mix of B10/B12/P12 in the same time slot on a network
They may have some truly exclusive windows, but usually BTN or FS1 would have another game. It will be OTA exclusive, I’m sure (no Fox game during a CBS or NBC game, etc.).
LikeLike
I interpreted that language as saying the Big 10 was offering exclusive windows, not that the network was. Obviously, there would be BTN games opposite noon and 3:30. But the network wouldn’t have to compete with better Big 10 games.
LikeLike
My interpretation is based on some things I saw on twitter, so take it FWIW.
LikeLike
Maybe it was no OTA competition. Fox could still put games on FS1 and BTN.
LikeLike
I proposed scattering the conference games throughout the schedule.
4 conference games in each of the first 4 weeks. Then 5 games a week each of the next 8 weeks. Final 2 weeks have 8 games each but Black Friday has 2 games (UNL-Iowa + PSU/MSU/RU/UMD) visiting UCLA. So only 1 week with 8 games.
Remember that there is a streamer too. Fox/CBS/NBC with the first 3 picks each week. Amazon with the 4th pick each week. If they each get 13 games, that’s 52 games (56 if they each get 14 games). FS1 get 4-8 leftover games. BTN gets the rest.
BTW, BTN has aired night games plenty of times in the past (also multiple games in the same time slot) so even the week they have 8 conference games, they’ll be able to fit them all in.
LikeLike
I know ESPN isn’t as powerful as it was 10 years ago, but I still think not including ESPN in the new media rights deal at all is a mistake. They can really shape perceptions which is important in sports like CFB and CBB that base there post season on subjective rankings.
LikeLike
I suppose “big risk” might be a better term to use than “mistake” in the first sentence.
LikeLike
Eh. The B10’s 3 biggest games every week will be on OTA networks. The only people that really matter for the CFP are the people on the CFP committee, and I think they’ll be able to find B10 games.
LikeLike
Surprised everyone here isn’t talking about this. Very interesting to see ESPN left out.
McMurphy’s info follows an SBJ article saying the same thing.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten’s emphasis on wanting exclusive windows meant that there probably wasn’t much room for ESPN, especially with 3 networks signing on…
The shocking part is that ESPN may not even be involved in basketball; that’s probably the bigger news than ESPN walking away from the football part of it.
LikeLike
Agreed, the basketball side would be another huge loss for the B10. Most of these are self-inflicted wounds, too.
This is what happens when an NFL guy makes decisions about college sports – he doesn’t understand the different landscape and makes bad choices. ESPN is much, much more powerful and important in CFB and MBB than it is in the NFL world.
LikeLike
If this was any time prior to now, I’d agree.
But everything is different now.
Now is probably the only time of the last 30 years where it’d actually make sense to walk away from ESPN if that’s what ends up happening (and I’m still skeptical ESPN won’t manage to get a sizeable basketball package until they actually end up missing out on that).
A football package with FOX/CBS/NBC is so much national exposure that I don’t see how you’d need ESPN.
People aren’t watching the random shows on ESPN as much as they used to; those aren’t quite the agenda setters that they were 10-15 years ago.
The SEC is obviously going to be the main thing on ESPN, but that’s been the case for years already.
LikeLike
If this is what happens, where will all the winter sports games go? FS1 doesn’t have room for all those MBB games. Will BTN have to dump coverage of all the other sports to make room? Will things get buried on streaming? Will things like the B10/ACC challenge get cancelled because Fox and ESPN are fighting?
ESPN owns the CFP and the lead up to it. That may change soon, but it hasn’t yet. ESPN also has 4 networks to carry B10 games, and 3 of them need sports all day. If B10 games aren’t on, then games where ESPN announcers (and pre-game/halftime/post-game talking heads) badmouth the B10 are. The totality of ESPN shows still sets the agenda for the casual fan, and influences the voters who rank teams, which further influences things, etc.
LikeLike
CBS currently has a Big 10 basketball contract. That’s one place the basketball games can go.
LikeLike
The current CFP contract expires in 2025, so I don’t think that’s a primary consideration here.
And yeah there’ll have to be homes for other sports; CBS might get more MBB, we’ll see what happens with the rest.
Big Ten/ACC challenge is as good for the ACC as it is for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
z33k,
That isn’t the question, it’s whether ESPN and Fox will work together on it. Maybe ESPN thinks it would boost Fox’s MBB coverage too much. Maybe ESPN will be mad at the B10 for not staying with them. These sorts of outside concerns suddenly matter if they B10 drops ESPN.
LikeLike
I dropped my ESPN + subscription as a result of this news. Rarely watched it anyway.
LikeLike
If this ends up being the result, the B10 will regret 2020-22 for decades. This will turn the SEC into a P1 regardless of how much money the B10 makes.
As for the money:
LikeLike
I don’t understand how they didn’t just keep the SEC if they’re offering the Big Ten $350 million for the 3:30 slot.
That number is higher than I thought possible. (I was expecting $250 million max).
LikeLike
Well, they used to pay the SEC $55M and wouldn’t renegotiate. The SEC was angry by the end and both sides decided they wouldn’t renew. ESPN is supposedly paying the SEC about $300M for those rights (they said they weren’t looking to do an SEC on ABC at 3:30 package – it will get spread around).
But the B10 will get that for a split of its B package, supposedly. I’m a little surprised FOX wanted the entire A package to itself. I’m not sure that’s good for the B10 to have all the best games at noon. The B10 is going to lose the ratings battles at 3:30 and 8:00 most weeks this way.
LikeLike
Turns out that noon isn’t a bad time for CFB. In 6 of the 12 regular season weeks after the first week (Labor Day weekend is funky with a lot of marquee night kickoff games), the best rated CFB game of the week was at noon. All on Fox and all involving at least 1 B10 team, of course. That’s more than any other time slot, including prime time.
This also means that nobody else will schedule any major games at noon, drawing the B10/Fox more eyeballs then.
LikeLike
Richard – FOX saw an opening and took it by putting their best game of the week up against Disney’s 4th or 5th best game on ABC. Starting in 2024, the noon ABC game will mostly likely be ACC 1 or SEC 3.
FOX should still win that slot, but it will get more competition and its rating will decline.
LikeLike
Brian – I’m pretty sure the 3:30p ABC slot is exclusive to the SEC, but it might not be SEC1 as many of the best SEC games will take place in prime time.
I agree with you that SEC 1a & 1b on ABC (3:30 & primetime) should routinely beat the B1G’s 2a & 2b on CBS & NBC.
LikeLike
Alan, ESPN already owns the SEC #3 and ACC #1 games so why wouldn’t they put them up at noon now vs Fox if that’s such a great strategy? Why wait until 2024?
LikeLike
Richard – I was discussing ABC. Currently, ABC is prohibited from airing home SEC games. There’s a big difference between SEC4 or 5 on ESPN at noon and SEC3 on ABC. As I said, I do expect FOX/B1G 1 to win the noon time slot, but the last couple of seasons they have been running up the score (ratings) against games that weren’t nearly as compelling. With the SEC moving to ABC in 2024, I expect there to be more good games at ABC’s disposal to air in that time slot.
LikeLike
Not to mention that B10 #1 would trounce the ACC #1 game in the ratings outside of the rare Clemson/ND matchups when they’re both in the top 10 (add FSU in to that mix as well if the Noles ever become great again).
LikeLike
Here’s an amazing stat: in 2021, with Clemson being down (and the Noles, obviously), not a single game that was ACC vs ACC broke even the 3mm viewer mark. That includes the ACC CCG.
The B10 and SEC had many (and several that had several times more viewers than 3mm).
LikeLike
Alan, the big change in that case is moving an SEC game from ESPN to ABC. Again, ABC already owns the #3 SEC game. It can’t put it in the late afternoon (I believe CBS has exclusivity at that slot) and SEC #2 is prime time so where does SEC #3 go now?
LikeLike
Alan,
Brian – I’m pretty sure the 3:30p ABC slot is exclusive to the SEC, but it might not be SEC1 as many of the best SEC games will take place in prime time.
Yes, I just meant they weren’t planning to replicate what CBS did, with the #1 pick on ABC at 3:30 every week. They’ve said they want to move things around to maximize ratings instead.
LikeLike
Zeek, $350mm for the tier 2 rights is definitely more than I expected CBS would paid as well. I was thinking a max of $300mm, though because that $300mm the SEC got for tier 1 rights was without Texas+OU while this is with USC+UCLA.
That definitely makes the $1.5B number sound possible. CBS and NBC pay $350mm each to alternate 2nd and 3rd picks each week.
Fox pays $700mm for first pick (and the not very valuable 4th pick that goes on FS1) + $800mm for the B10 CCG.
LikeLike
The crazy thing is that the $300M that ESPN paid the SEC included not just the Tier 1 network games, but also the conference championship that CBS formerly had
LikeLike
Looking backwards as always, Brian. In CFB, with 3 OTA games a week (likely more than any other conference), the B10 won’t suffer from lack of attention.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/big-ten-finalizing-media-rights-fox-cbs-nbc.html
For those who can’t access SBJ or The Athletic.
Fox will have the Big Ten’s “A” package, and Ourand reports that CBS and NBC are in the lead to split the “B” package.
…
But ESPN shouldn’t be counted out until the deals are final.
According to Ourand, “ESPN still is negotiating with the conference, and as long as they’re talking there remains the possibility ESPN could wind up with a package.”
…
Ourand reports that “[Big Ten media rights] agreements could be reached by the end of this week or push into next,” so we should get concrete answers on these deals very soon.
LikeLike
One key piece of this article is an excerpt from SBJ’s article:
The conference’s deals with CBS and NBC are not finalized. But it looks like the two networks are in the lead to split a “B” package. CBS would pick up games for the 3:30pm ET window, and NBC would carry games in primetime. NBC’s streaming service, Peacock, also would wind up carrying some games.
So Peacock will get games. Someone else said the SBJ article claimed that Amazon may be out of it.
LikeLike
Here’s Canzano’s take, FWIW: https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-espn-shut-out-of-big-ten?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
LikeLike
• This could be a leak, designed to tweak ESPN for a few bucks. A couple of industry insiders that I communicated with wondered if the news was the Big Ten doing some public negotiating. Keep an eye on that.
Hopefully it is.
• NBC might want to position Notre Dame as a lead-in to the Big Ten’s weekly primetime game. Or it could flip flop the two products, week to week. Doing so would give the network a consistent Saturday football schedule.
It doesn’t sound like flip-flopping will happen. ND will get 2:30 games.
• Thompson also added, “If ESPN is on the outside that’s very good news for the Pac 12.”
And the B12. Everyone agrees on that point.
• This whole thing is being positioned by some as an ESPN vs. Fox battle. Industry experts don’t see it that way. During the NFL season, does anyone see it as a Fox (NFC) vs. CBS (AFC) battle? Or do we just watch football?
Industry experts are wrong.
First, the networks don’t have any impact on NFL expansion or franchises changing cities. They do in CFB, if only indirectly. If ESPN had been behind the Brown moving to Baltimore, the Browns fans would’ve burned ESPN’s HQ to the ground.
Second, the NFL is all one league in a way that CFB isn’t. In the NFL, it’s more about your team than your conference. If your team gets good press, who cares about the AFC or NFC? Being a “conference” is very different in CFB than the NFL. That dynamic can’t exist for them in the same way as it does in CFB. Every network’s coverage is perceived as biased in favor of 1-2 conferences and against the rest, especially with ESPN owning the CFP and certain conferences. No network controls who gets to make the NFL playoffs, or gets to be the only ones to air the Super Bowl.
LikeLike
No network will control who makes the CFP either. Pretty certain the committee members will be watching games rather than ESPN talking heads.
LikeLike
I’ll take the Fox, CBS, NBC triple header over the B1G’s second-fiddle status on ESPN, all day long. ESPN is far too invested in the SEC to ever expend the same promotional resources (for.the B1G) as those three networks. The same people who are now complaining about not having a package on ESPN, only two days ago, were extolling the wisdom of handing the B1G’s media rights over to BTN. That was Delany who saw fit to do that, not the NFL guy. Unbelievable. As for ESPN, I love their production values. They put on a great show. Still, they aren’t the monopoly they once were, and with the CFP contract expiring in ’25, the playing field will be leveled. To say nothing of the tech companies inevitably foray into college football. As long as this deal is in the five year range, I like it.
LikeLike
ESPN is far too invested in the SEC to ever expend the same promotional resources (for the B1G) as those three networks.
ESPN covers sports 24-7. I think they can promote more than one league at a time.
The same people who are now complaining about not having a package on ESPN, only two days ago, were extolling the wisdom of handing the B1G’s media rights over to BTN.
As I recall, quite a few of us thought that was a horrendous mistake and still do.
LikeLike
If the B10 gets the money rumored and 3 OTA games a week (which will almost certainly be more than any other conference), it’s going to be hard to argue that strategy was bad.
LikeLike
I doubt the casual fan will somehow miss B10 games on major OTA channels, all in their own branded time slots.
LikeLike
To be fair, I think I was the one most comfortable with the Big Ten granting its media rights to BTN and having FOX negotiate alongside.
And I think the FOX, NBC, CBS move is logical at this time.
Following the NFL strategy for OTA is fine in a world where only 2 conferences matter.
Moving away from ESPN just 10-15 years ago would have been insane given structure of cfb at that time.
But with CFP up for revamp after 2025, this is a logical move.
ESPN is clearly all in on the SEC and the Big Ten’s best move is to follow the NFL.
As long as basketball is somehow taken care of I’ll be really comfortable with the deal.
LikeLike
I really don’t think leaving ESPN will be that big of a deal. I would rather be on the broadcast networks at the moment. As long as ESPN has an interest in a CFB post season they will have to cover the Big Ten. And Fox will cover the SEC. Plus, if the B1G continues to expand more of the nations attention will naturally move to Fox. Sports Center is an afterthought these days and college game day is on the decline.
Basketball is the only question mark but so many games are on BTN and you can reserve the weekends for top matchups on Fox or CBS. ESPN is not involved in the B1G tourney and they are not involved in the NCAAs and the sport survives.
LikeLike
Yeah, I can only use myself as an example, but my college football weeks are way different than they were 10 or 15 years ago when I’d watch a ton of hours of ESPN outside of the games.
I watch very little ESPN outside of Big Ten games and the CFP process/bowl season.
Obviously their ESPN.com portal is likely to always be a central part of the sports story but I think so much has changed in terms of sports viewing that the Big Ten’s move is pretty logical.
LikeLike
z33k,
I think we are far from just the SEC and B10 mattering.
On the field, the B10 shows zero signs of that level of dominance. OSU is the only B10 school with multiple CFP appearances, or any CFP wins. MI and MSU both got blown out in their sole appearances. UO has more CFP success than the B10 outside of OSU. ND has more CFP appearances than any B10 school outside of OSU. UW and UC have as much CFP success as any B10 school outside of OSU.
Weakened B12 and P12 conferences seem even more likely to have 13-0 or 12-1 champs every few years. They will still matter. Between Clemson, FSU and Miami, the ACC will still matter. Being rich doesn’t guarantee success, or the bottom of the B10 wouldn’t lose to G5 teams as often.
Maybe in a decade the B10 will be better on the field, but that’s pure speculation. Right now it’s just another conference on the field, but about to get paid a lot more.
LikeLike
Kevin,
As long as ESPN has an interest in a CFB post season they will have to cover the Big Ten.
They would have to mention the B10, but they don’t need to cover the B10 fairly or equally all season. They can spend all year badmouthing the B10 or just giving scores, then mention them when the CFP standing come around in November.
And Fox will cover the SEC.
Fox doesn’t cover anything outside of games. They have opinion shows all day, mostly about the NFL and NBA.
Plus, if the B1G continues to expand more of the nations attention will naturally move to Fox.
How? Fox doesn’t have the ecosystem of coverage beyond Saturday. Their website is horrible, their sports networks don’t cover sports, they show debates on pro sports.
Sports Center is an afterthought these days and college game day is on the decline.
Sports Center is the only show of its type. Fox has no equivalent show.
Basketball is the only question mark but so many games are on BTN and you can reserve the weekends for top matchups on Fox or CBS.
CBS already shows games. Do they want more? Does Fox? BTN can’t carry all the games, especially with expansion – unless systems will allow the overflow channels to be used for MBB.
ESPN is not involved in the B1G tourney and they are not involved in the NCAAs and the sport survives.
The sport has devolved into being just the NCAA tournament for most viewers. ESPN covers that because it is too popular not to, plus they make money from the bracket competition and their coverage on ESPN.com and TV.
LikeLike
z33k,
Yeah, I can only use myself as an example, but my college football weeks are way different than they were 10 or 15 years ago when I’d watch a ton of hours of ESPN outside of the games.
I watch very little ESPN outside of Big Ten games and the CFP process/bowl season.
How much of that is being 10-15 years older and at a different place in life?
Obviously their ESPN.com portal is likely to always be a central part of the sports story but I think so much has changed in terms of sports viewing that the Big Ten’s move is pretty logical.
Fox completely gutted their website a few years ago. It’s completely useless now, leaving ESPN.com to own the field.
LikeLike
Brian,
ESPN.com is pretty useless because all the good articles are behind a paywall. Anyone willing to pay for their sports news is not somebody you have to worry about tuning in to watch important Big Ten games.
Plus a lot of people get their sports fix online. My personal go-to site is yahoo sports.
LikeLike
It depends what you want. Basic news is available. It’s their in depth analysis that is usually paywalled. And plenty of people pay for that access (included with ESPN+, too).
Remember, the concern is the casual fan and ESPN.com has what they want – standings, rankings, game times, scores, highlights.
LikeLike
It doesn’t sound like flip-flopping will happen. ND will get 2:30 games.
Will Notre Dame agree never to play a night game at home?
LikeLike
I’m guessing it was NBC pressing for night games before.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think ND has always preferred afternoon games. Being “old school” or “traditional” is their brand, plus it sets them apart from the other big names that chase prime time games.
B10 games used to frequently be at 1:30pm ET before TV forced them into the standard windows we know today. ND has had the power to keep that time.
LikeLike
When the Big 10 officially announces their media rights deal, will it shake down the thunder from the sky? LOL
LikeLike
I’m comfortable with going all in on the “NFL” strategy with FOX/CBS/NBC exclusive windows because of the USC/UCLA move (and presumed further conference realignment). Frank makes a fair point (on Twitter) about the lack of a streaming strategy on the part of the OTA network corporate owners, and that’s something we’ve debated endlessly on here. I’ve brought that point up many times myself that NBC/CBS/FOX don’t have well-defined endgames.
But these same corporations (FOX, CBS, and NBC) are each handing over $2 billion annually to the NFL for Sundays.
They’ll figure this out because they have the incentive to; and if they don’t, the market will figure it out for them. Just keep following the NFL is probably going to be a strategy to survive and thrive into the future.
(As an aside, keep an eye on the Warner Bros Discovery attempt to merge HBO Max and Discovery+; I think all of the major media companies are watching that closely to see how merging streaming services goes. If it’s successful, I think we start seeing a bunch of mergers that could yield 2-3 major streaming sites. Or if not successful, I think we start seeing Apple, Amazon, or Google come in and take a look at buying out broadcast networks down the line.)
To the main point: The Big Ten is making a bet that only 2 conferences will matter in the future, the Big Ten and SEC. Further realignment of the ACC/Pac-12 will likely bear that out, but we have to wait and see what happens.
As far as competition goes, the CFP contract is up after the 2025 season. Texas/OU join that season, so ESPN is only going to have one year (or maybe two if they buy a year off that GoR) where they promote the SEC at 16 with total control of the CFP.
Regardless, I think this strategy would have been a very bad idea in the era of 5-6 of the AQ conferences each having 8-12 teams when ESPN was really at the peak of its powers in terms of dictating the sports landscape. But the world has changed enough and college football has changed enough. Most of the top rated games are already in the Big Ten and SEC and adding USC/UCLA to the Big Ten and Texas/Oklahoma to the SEC is going to drive that even more.
This isn’t all that different from Delany’s BTN bet. It’s the right move at the right time imo.
As far as basketball goes, it’s probably going to require some adjustment since it’s not all that clear where the extra content will go (but I assume there’s a strategy there). Still the Big Ten with UCLA, USC would have like 10-12 tournament teams and many of the major brands along with the games that have generated most of the viewership over the last 5-10 years. If any basketball conference could try to leave ESPN, it’s really only the Big Ten that could.
Of course, this means the all-out war over ACC teams is likely to be pretty nasty given the Big Ten splitting with ESPN which is all in on the SEC. It’s really a zero sum game now, especially with respect to UNC (which I think of as the most valuable school from a comprehensive standpoint other than ND) and 2036 realignment.
LikeLike
As an aside, keep an eye on the Warner Bros Discovery attempt to merge HBO Max and Discovery+; I think all of the major media companies are watching that closely to see how merging streaming services goes. If it’s successful, I think we start seeing a bunch of mergers that could yield 2-3 major streaming sites.
Consolidation is the rule in immature industries. There are too many streamers: some have to fail. But this one would be pretty weak sauce, since it’s just a combination of two networks that the same company already owns.
LikeLike
They’re only under the same roof because of a merger that happened back in April 2022 after Discovery and WarnerMedia merged (AT&T spun out WarnerMedia, formerly TimeWarner, after realizing that trying to grow HBO Max to the level of Netflix or Amazon Prime was going to require tens of billions that they couldn’t afford to spend on that pursuit).
Main reason why it’s the one to keep an eye on is because Comcast (NBC/Peacock) and Paramount (CBS/Paramount+) were rumored to be interested in buying Warner off of AT&T last year. And that’s because Warner Bros Discovery doesn’t own an OTA network, so it’s the one company that’s free to merge with anybody.
If the HBO Max/Discovery+ combination works out, Comcast and Paramount can take another look at the possibility of merging Peacock or Paramount+ with that in the hopes of creating a giant streaming service with 100+ million subs.
Comcast is the obvious buyer; it’s also why I think they’ve gone very slow with the Peacock rollout and sort of waited to see what everyone else will do. Peacock is the easiest service to just fold into another in that respect since they haven’t scaled it up significantly.
LikeLike
Actually, from a financial point of view, for the B10 (and probably SEC as well), only ND (and maaaaybe FSU, if they can get back to the Bowden era top 10 consistency) aren’t dilutive additions these days.
LikeLike
That’s true in terms of just raw financial numbers (FSU would clearly be additive to the Big Ten, and could see it as additive to the SEC as a #2 Florida school due to the raw size of Florida), but this is about territory and I think UNC is going to be the key school fought over because of demographics/region and the rest.
I think the NC markets get underrated in terms of cfb viewership; they’re typically in the top 20 in terms of raw rating and extrapolated against the state’s population of 10+ million, the state more than holds its own in terms of cfb viewership.
LikeLike
Yet that doesn’t show through in TV ratings.
I pointed out that not a single ACC vs ACC game even broke the 3mm viewer mark in 2021. In 2019, only 1 broke the 4mm viewer mark, and Clemson won the national title that year.
As for demographics, sure, I’m all for the BigTwenty(Four) myself, but I don’t think the B10 would go for it.
LikeLike
LSU defeated Clemson for the CFP championship for the 2019 season, but I get your point.
LikeLike
Alan: “LSU defeated Clemson for the CFP championship for the 2019 season, but I get your point.”
To be fair, Clemson should not have even been *in* the championship, so perhaps that’s why Richard was misremembering it for another year that they did win.
Sincerely, Still bitter OSU fan who was at the Fiesta.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-releases/2012/08/college-footballs-top-25-highest-rated-markets-birmingham-oklahoma-city-columbus-top-three-in-2011/
Yes, it’s over a decade old but things change slowly for this.
Top markets (within the 56 metered markets) by average TV ratings for CFB on ESPN:
12t. Charlotte – 2.7 rating
12t. Greensboro – 2.7 rating
22. Raleigh-Durham – 2.2 rating
That’s pretty good for not having any local schools do well.
So it does show up in the TV ratings, just not for particular NC schools. That means there is a lot of potential for growth, though.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s the interesting thing to me.
There’s clearly a huge appetite for cfb in NC. The state’s markets have long been among the best for cfb generally. But none of the schools have harnessed that nationally.
Combined with the natural recruiting advantages that UNC has, it could turn into something. UNC has long been one of the highest potential schools imo.
NC State may have more direct football fans in its local area, but outside of that UNC’s brand is way brighter.
In any case, I see the potential/value there.
How much value can UNC generate if freed from NC State/WF on a much bigger stage?
LikeLike
z33k,
The most important point is that we have to wait until the actual deal is announced (and any repercussions become known) to have any final opinions. Everything is still hypothetical at the moment. The details really matter in this case. We have no idea what role a streamer would have in this package, for example. We don’t know how many games are going to which networks, or what priority of picks they will have. We don’t know what will happen to MBB and other sports.
If these major changes happen, they can only really be evaluated properly in hindsight anyway.
LikeLike
In the Canzano link posted by vp0819, Canzano had his own link to his article on ND independence. To the extent that the analysis is correct, ND may be looking on average at $40 million plus per year from the expanded playoffs alone, which it does not need to share with the ACC. With that much, plus other payments, ND will not likely feel compelled to give up its independence.
Clearly the ESPN issue is that with no games, they will pretend the B1G does not exist, other than maybe giving scores. That will not be good.
LikeLike
Clearly the ESPN issue is that with no games, they will pretend the B1G does not exist, other than maybe giving scores. That will not be good.
It could not possibly be as annoying as BTN, which almost literally pretends as if the Big Ten is the only college football that exists.
Nobody knows if ESPN will change, but they have a 40-year history of covering sports news beyond just the leagues they had the rights for. I still prefer not to go dark on ESPN, but I don’t think they will ignore the Big Ten to the extent that BTN ignores everyone else.
LikeLike
Marc,
BTN is the B10 network. Of course it only covers the B10. Do the SECN and ACCN cover the B10? The BTN talk shows discuss the national picture as postseason time rolls around, but otherwise their remit is to cover the B10. They know that if you want national coverage, you’ll go to a national source. They don’t have the resources to compete with ESPN, the networks, SI, The Athletic, etc.
ESPN has a history of discussing the sports they air a lot, and almost completely neglecting those they don’t. They will show scores and minimal highlights and that’s it. Look at their coverage of the NHL. The instant the NHL moved to NBC, ESPN almost entirely stopped mentioning hockey. Even ESPN’s own ombudsman called them out for it – it’s not just fans. Magically when the NHL came back to ESPN, ESPN started discussing it a lot more.
LikeLike
These networks will promote the B1G during NFL broadcasts.
I have little worry about promotion and exposure.
LikeLike
They’ll run promos for games, sure. That’s the upside of splitting rights among several networks. But they won’t talk about CFB in any meaningful way, especially during the week when ESPN will.
LikeLike
Brian- you make it sound like ESPN offers so much CFB content mid week. They have a CFB live show that they have progressively broadcast fewer and fewer shows. The ratings are terrible. The younger generation is not watching ESPN let alone paying for it. We need to meet our fans where they are and that is OTA and streaming.
I would recommend viewing some of these moves from a glass half full perspective. Just once in awhile.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Brian- you make it sound like ESPN offers so much CFB content mid week.
Compared to Fox and everyone else, they do. Any is a lot more than none.
They have a CFB live show that they have progressively broadcast fewer and fewer shows. The ratings are terrible.
Umm, it looks like it’s daily on ESPN2 and ESPNEWS. Maybe it’s rarely on ESPN. And CFB gets mentioned in Sports Center. And sometimes in their debate shows. And sometimes in OTL. And on their website. And on ESPN+.
The younger generation is not watching ESPN let alone paying for it.
Not over cable maybe, it doesn’t mean they don’t stream it. Or access the website for coverage. It’s not like the other networks offer anything close for streaming or the web compared to what ESPN does.
We need to meet our fans where they are and that is OTA and streaming.
First, ESPN is streamed by millions. Second, CFB fans are older and the most ardent fans are not those in the majority-streaming age group. And none of the other networks do anything useful for streaming. ESPN has an OTA arm, so you don’t have to miss out on OTA by having ESPN on board.
I would recommend viewing some of these moves from a glass half full perspective. Just once in awhile.
I have been nothing but positive about spreading across multiple networks.
LikeLike
Perhaps you consider it natural that a network called BTN would pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist. I bring it up just to highlight how terrible it is, and how inconsistent to complain if ESPN does the same (not that they will). It is the reason why I watch BTN as little as possible.
LikeLike
Marc: “I bring it up just to highlight how terrible it is, and how inconsistent to complain if ESPN does the same (not that they will).”
I can’t really tell you how to feel, but this does feel like a odd stance to take. It feels a little whataboutism. Yes BTN covers sports, but they’re very up front about the particular subset of sports they’re trying to cover.
To use BTN as an example of hypocrisy when voicing concerns about ESPN’s potential selective coverage feels somewhat akin to using the Golf Channel to argue this point. The Golf Channel’s focus is in the name, as is the Big Ten Network. ESPN’s focus is Sports. It would be much stranger if they choose to no longer pay attention to one of the biggest conferences in college athletics.
But, again, I can’t tell you to feel differently. You do you. That said, I watch as little BTN as possible because the presentation is inferior to ESPN, Fox, and CBS. I don’t need their poor coverage to extend to other conferences.
LikeLike
Yes, of course BTN’s coverage is overall just terrible. This comes from being the Tier 3 network.
But the sport they are covering is college football. If you do well in the Big Ten, your next challenge is a bowl game against a team from another conference — so the results in those other conferences do matter.
In that sense, it’s not like the Golf Channel, which covers the full universe the sport their athletes play, which is Golf.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’ve only ever used BTN to watch OSU football games. To me it is obvious that the B10’s network would only discuss the B10. Does the NFL Network cover MLB or the NBA (and vice versa with their networks)?
ESPN is a national sports network. I don’t expect the SECN to discuss the B10, but ESPN and FS1 and other national sports networks should discuss all P5 conferences if they discuss CFB.
LikeLike
Brian – I don’t watch the talking head shows on the SECN but do watch the highlight show SEC Now along with ESPN College Football. SEC Now doesn’t normally show highlights from other conferences, except with respect to the playoff picture.
LikeLike
Marc,
No, the sports they are covering are B10 sports. It’s not just CFB, and they never claimed to be broadly covering these sports. They cover the B10. They are “beat writers” for 14 schools.
Late in the season they do have daily shows that start discussing bowls and the CFP and potential opponents. They do a bowl preview show. They just don’t spend all season on it – they wait until it becomes B10-relevant.
LikeLike
To me it is obvious that the B10’s network would only discuss the B10. Does the NFL Network cover MLB or the NBA (and vice versa with their networks)?
Big Ten teams do not only play against Big Ten opponents. The closer analogy would be if CBS only covered the AFC, which of course it doesn’t. Look, I am not expecting BTN to change. I am just pointing out how crappy it is.
LikeLike
Marc,
No, you aren’t pointing out how crappy it is. You mentioned that separately. You are pointing out that it doesn’t meet your expectations for a conference-owned network covering a sport. I think your expectations are idiosyncratic, not that BTN is crappy for not meeting them.
LikeLike
You do realize that one can get scores online A LOT faster than by watching ESPN? One can also watch highlights online. In fact one can search for a highlight to watch when one wants to watch it. Is the ESPN commentary overlay so important as to forego all of that superior convenience?? Aside from game broadcasts and the entertaining College Game Day – which is pretty useless to people on the west coast – ESPN is the past, not the present (let alone the future).
LikeLike
I don’t know who or what you responded to, but ESPN provides all of those services as well via their website and ESPN+. They are everywhere and in all formats – radio, TV, web, streaming.
LikeLike
I mean, if they cover the CFP race (which ESPN will definitely hype up, considering that they still own all the rights to it), it would be tough to ignore theB10 if B10 teams are in it. Granted, it’s up to B10 teams to stay relevant.
But also, ESPN isn’t the huge force in sports it use to be.
LikeLike
Baylor got ignored one year they were in it. Oklahoma St. got ignored in 2011. On their CFP/BCS shows, ESPN totally ignored Baylor and barely mentioned Oklahoma St. So yes, they are certainly capable of ignoring teams that are in it. The discussion in 2011 was Alabama or 2 loss Stanford or 1 loss 2nd place Oregon.
ESPN is unbelievably flagrant in how they ignore teams.
LikeLike
I would have voted for OK State to make the 2011 championship game over Alabama.
LikeLike
Ha! I am sure you would have!!
LikeLike
In 2011, Stanford only had one loss – to Oregon late in the season – prior to losing to Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl (in OT) due to Shaw’s stupidity. Oregon’s two losses were to 10-2 USC (by 3 points late in the season) and 13-1 LSU (NC runner-up) in the first game of the season. Oklahoma State played nobody OOC and lost within conference to a losing team when the chips were increasingly on theline. The Cowboys did not merit much BCS mention that year.
LikeLike
Wasn’t that OkSU loss the day after a plane crash killed some of their basketball coaches? I seem to recall a lot of sympathy for them generally, and their heads probably weren’t 100% in the game.
LikeLike
Yep, back 2011 ESPN decided it wanted an LSU-Alabama rematch for the title game and did everything they could to engineer it.
LikeLike
Part of the FOX Big Noon strategy is attacking College Gameday’s pregame show primacy. FOX has beaten Gameday a few times in the ratings, and that frequency will probably grow.
ESPN’s dominance on controlling the narrative is waning. Gameday is fading and no one watches Sportscenter anymore.
FOX will likely battle ESPN for the rights to the weekly CFP standings show in the next cycle. I would not be surprised to see FOX win. They appear to be all-in on the B1G, and B1G is all-in on FOX.
LikeLike
Quite the contrary, I would be surprised to see Fox win. If I were not a fan of either league, I would rather be playing ESPN’s hand than Fox’s.
LikeLike
It really depends.
I think the Big Ten is going to push for all of these things to be split up: games rotated (quarterfinals/semifinals/finals), and then multiple networks being able to announce the CFP rankings (i.e. FOX or FS1 allowed to do it alongside ESPN).
Might be better for the FOX if that somehow rotated as well though; each year the selection show would alternate between networks or something.
ESPN would get odd years, FOX/FS1 would get even years, or whatever.
LikeLike
Also, I want to be explicit here:
It would be a huge fail by FOX if they were spending $700-800 million on the Big Ten annually and then took the Rose Bowl contract for another $150+ million (I’m speculating on that) and then theoretically put up another $600-800 million a year for a share of the CFP without making sure they get a share of the selection show.
The selection show is a key part of the ballgame, getting that exclusively every other year at minimum is a must if they’re investing $1.5 billion a year on cfb.
LikeLike
greg,
One aspect to remember is that ESPN.com is dominant. Fox Sport’s website is just a bunch of video clips from their TV/radio talk shows. Then by all subscriptions and viewership, ESPN > FS1, ESPN2 > FS2, and ESPNU has no match. And there’s ESPN+ vs Fox’s “streaming” options. ESPN has an entire ecosystem that Fox can’t match.
I’d expect no exclusive CFP preview show anymore. If multiple networks air the games, why limit who can do the preview? I’d expect ESPN and Fox and maybe at least 1 more to have their own shows.
LikeLike
Dominant? These days, people have the Athletic, the Ringer, + CBS Sportsline and NBC also have sports websites.
LikeLike
https://www.websiteiq.com/top-sites/sports-news/
When I say dominant, this is what I mean. ESPN.com gets over 60M hits per month, sometimes over 80M. The #2 sports news site gets under 20M.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Canzano’s analysis is based on Navigate’s work, and they made some huge assumptions (out of necessity – not blaming them). Nobody has any idea what the new revenue sharing model for an expanded CFP will be, so they scaled up the current model’s split of base pay vs performance reward based on their estimate of what a new CFP has been rumored to be worth, then created their own model for how to split the performance reward money. The odds they got all of that correct are slim.
They also used the past 10 years to estimate how many teams from each conference would make the CFP, assuming the 6+6 model was used. That 10 year window gave different results from other analyses based on the BCS era, or just the CFP era, so there is some sensitivity there. Their most recent work also accounted for OU and UT in the SEC, but not USC and UCLA in the B10, which of course skews the numbers. Adding CFP berths from OU and UT in the B12 plus the current SEC isn’t accurate – either OU and UT or the SEC would have to take more losses and thus not get in as often. And USC might add a little to the B10’s numbers, thought they’ve been down the past few years. The 10 year window may also artificially inflate ND’s numbers. And remember, ND’s money may average $44M but it would vary wildly from year to year.
https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/how-much-money-can-an-expanded-college-football-playoff-generate/
A good discussion of how they did the work, including an interview with someone from Navigate.
LikeLike
ESPN is officially out of the Big Ten media rights:
“ESPN said no to the conference’s final offer of a 7-year/$380 million per-year package, sources tell SBJ.”
Does this mean we’re going to see a 7 year contract?
LikeLike
If you were concerned about ESPN ignoring the Big Ten…
LikeLike
Exactly right.
LikeLike
Don’t have a problem with that in principle, but it’s a little misleading – it ignores people who use streaming to get convention TV channels. i.e. those using Sling, YouTubeTV, Hulu with Live TV, etc which is another way to get ESPN (and other cable channels).
I’d be more curious as to the number of households with access to ESPN in general (which certainly has been decreasing over time) versus how they get the channel(s).
LikeLike
That does probably underestimate it a bit. There is a huge risk in leaving ESPN. However, that risk is mitigated by the FOX/CBS/NBC component. It will be very hard for any Big Ten team to “fall through the cracks” when the conference is being promoted by their three OTA channels, especially if that promotion extends to the each network’s NFL property.
LikeLike
Other thing is when the CFP is divided up (and presumably the selection show).
A lot should change as FOX gets into the postseason.
Will be interesting to see if NBC wants into that as well.
LikeLike
MIke,
The difference is that ESPN is sports 24/7, and dwarfs FS1 and all other sports networks. NBC killed their sports network, and CBS might as well kill theirs. FS1 is a distant second to ESPN in coverage (they seem to basically air and re-air “debate” shows all day). They don’t even attempt daily sports news coverage.
The concern isn’t exposure on Saturday, it’s the rest of the week I’d worry about. That’s where ESPN has the huge edge.
LikeLike
The concern isn’t exposure on Saturday, it’s the rest of the week I’d worry about. That’s where ESPN has the huge edge
Absolutely. I’m really interested to see what their work around to it is. At least, I expect some OTA exposure for basketball and the Olympic sports but I don’t think Fox can do it alone.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s the main reason why I’m not quite as concerned here. ESPN will still be the main “center” of sports, but it’s not like the Big Ten is leaving for Versus or something.
Big Ten is literally taking up the prime real estate everywhere else outside of ESPN by taking the most important windows on FOX, CBS, NBC.
Once the CFP is split up (which I assume means the selection show will be as well), I don’t think there’d be that much to fear.
LikeLike
I think the biggest risk here that the B10 is taking is if ESPN reups and still has the full package of the CFP. If an expanded playoff gets divided and shared among networks, then great; but if ESPN continues to have the whole thing, it wouldn’t be ideal for the one conference that doesn’t have any programming on ESPN.
LikeLike
So where in that is the data showing ESPN’s power dropped significantly? That’s just who receives TV by cable or satellite at home. Last I checked, you can stream ESPN too. Did they differentiate streaming cable channels from having cable? And of course there is ESPN+.
That’s not to say things haven’t changed since 2005, but that data isn’t particularly relevant as presented.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “power”, then?
ESPN isn’t going to be able to influence the selection committees for either the CFP or March Madness.
LikeLike
Yes, probably. That’s a little longer than I expected, but it’s all about getting ahead of the ACC schools becoming available. That would run through the 2030 season, with negotiations starting in 2028-29. That seems early to add any ACC schools to me. I guess they just want a second bite at the apple before the SEC’s rights come up again.
I would’ve thought they were looking for 2 short deals, with the second ending around 2034.
LikeLike
There are, no doubt, all sorts of triggers in this contract should the B1G add more schools. I would not be surprised to see them go back to the well and add Oregon and Washington (at a lower payout) if ESPN attempts to lock them up. And yes, with NBC in the mix and offering its night games to the B1G, I still believe the ND situation is fluid. The conventional wisdom (here) that the shifting tectonic plates of expansion/consolidation are suddenly going to pause for a decade is not one I ascribe to, obviously. I would guess the time horizon for this to all shake out is five years or less. Market forces are driving this train and have historically been pretty impatient once the value of an asset (such as.two Super Conferences) has been determined. I just don’t see that GOR holding them back.
LikeLike
Having a composition clause would be typical, so it make sense. It may be more specific than most about which schools add how much, or it might be generic.
I have more faith in a black and white contract. At some point the available money will trump the exit costs, but that’s a ways away.
LikeLike
I would guess the time horizon for this to all shake out is five years or less.
Five years puts you into the middle of contract dead space. It will be after Notre Dame either joined the Big Ten or signed a new contract with NBC, but before their next contract would be approaching expiration. Similar story with the Pac-X. And too soon for an ACC school to leave. If you don’t see any more big moves this year, I expect that is the end of it until the 2030s.
LikeLike
Just some speculation:
7 year contract would end in 2030; that means Big Ten would be negotiating next deal in 2028-2029 and would have to start thinking about how/what other schools to add to the Big Ten for 2036 even though that’s around the end of the next contract.
Might be an advantage to just go to the schools around then even though nobody’s likely leaving the ACC until 2036. (I’m sure FSU will be looking around hard as soon as the numbers get crazy in the late 2020s).
Either way mid-2030s should be an explosive time for realignment.
LikeLike
Perhaps the plan is to have the next deal end in 2036, so ACC schools could have a simple transition legally?
LikeLike
Yeah 7 year contract followed by 6 year contract would end in 2036 for perfect alignment for the following expanded contract with ACC schools.
Also may be essential for forwarding $150-180 million per school to keep them whole.
Need to get full value in 2036- beyond.
That means the big tell for targeting ACC schools would be the next contract ending in 2036.
LikeLike
The New York Post’s Andrew Marchand reports that CBS will pay $350 million a year for its Big Ten package, slightly more than the $330 million that ESPN is paying for SEC football alone. Here’s to CBS going Eye-to-eye (media humor) with the WWL!
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2022/08/08.aspx
Some minor points that haven’t already been mentioned as much.
Conversations with several sources describe ESPN on the outside looking in with a bid that is not big enough to secure a deal. All it takes is a Chapek phone call to increase that bid.
SO it’s not that they didn’t try, they just got outbid and didn’t choose to match.
Fox agreed to the “A” package months ago. As part of its deal, it will carry a football game on the broadcast network at noon ET, plus football games on its cable channels FS1 and BTN, in which it holds a 60% stake.
The conference’s deals with CBS and NBC are not finalized. But it looks like the two networks are in the lead to split a “B” package. CBS would pick up games for the 3:30pm ET window, and NBC would carry games in primetime. NBC’s streaming service, Peacock, also would wind up carrying some games. Amazon has bid on these packages, but sources described CBS and NBC as the clear front-runners.
So is there a 4th package for Amazon, or is Peacock all the additional streaming there will be?
LikeLike
Chapek’s a Michigan State grad. Should of had Sparty make the pitch.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced there is a 4th package. If this bid ESPN turned down was for 13 games (CBS) and NBC is allegedly a similar number but potentially paying slightly more and including some additional games on Peacock, these two contracts are essentially ESPN’s current contract if not slightly more with the peacock content. Yeah USC and UCLA create some additional inventory, but Fox/CBS/NBC + Peacock may be it.
LikeLike
Brian: “The conference’s deals with CBS and NBC are not finalized. But it looks like the two networks are in the lead to split a “B” package.”
I agree, it does indeed look that way. Call me a heretic but I remain focused upon NBC’s payouts to ND and the Big Ten on a dollars-per-game perspective. If the Big Ten is getting X dollars for a “B” game, e.g., Michigan State-Wisconsin, in an ND doubleheader on NBC, what is ND getting the same day? Using this year’s ND home schedule as an example:
Marshall – C
Cal – B minus
BYU in LV ND home team – B
Stanford – B+
UNLV – C
Clemson – A
Boston College – C
Now, that is ballpark same-same at a line-up of Big Ten “B” games. How much will ND be paid and how much will the Big Ten be paid?
LikeLike
According to Adam Rittenberg, fewer marquee games than the network’s current agreement.coupled with the fact the offer did not include a direct-to-consumer package (ESPN+) is the reason negotiations broke down. With both CBS and NBC coming in at $350m, it’ll be interesting to see what Fox paid, and if Amazon or Apple might fill the direct to consumer slot denied ESPN+.
LikeLike
I wonder what Disney was even bidding on with the 3:30p and primetime ABC spots already spoken for. I doubt that FOX would allow ABC to televise B1G #2 at noon opposite FOX’s B1G #1.
LikeLike
Presumably exactly what was reported. 13 games that they could chose to put wherever they wanted. Essentially it would’ve been a trade lose about half of the Big Ten content you had before for the Tier 1 SEC content.
LikeLike
Alan,
I assume it was either for the same packages CBS and NBC wanted, or for a lot of games left after that to fill slots on ESPN/2. The $380M indicates it was more than what CBS wanted, and Peacock getting games makes the ESPN claim of no DTC component sound odd.
I think it will take more reporting to clear this up, but likely we’ll never know for sure.
LikeLike
That assumes there is even a direct consumer slot to bid on. Ourand’s reporting is that Amazon has bid on the 2nd and 3rd or maybe even 4th if you assume there is a direct consumer package, but NBC and CBS are the clear favorites to get them. That to me implies that there are probably only 3 packages and NBC enhanced their bid for peacock content.
LikeLike
Nicole Auerbach had tweeted that there was Fox + CBS + NBC + a streamer, but she didn’t know who (Amazon or …). Perhaps it was just the Peacock bit and her sources were unclear.
LikeLike
Her actual athletic article is much less clear than than the tweet. She basically said it isn’t clear how it would be structured and whether or not amazon would be involved and then went on to say that Peacock was under consideration according to a different source. Ourand’s SBJ reporting said Amazon bid on the CBS/NBC portion of the contract, but NBC/CBS “were the clear front runners” and peacock would be getting content under the NBC deal.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34374231/sources-big-ten-nears-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc
According to sources, ESPN rejected the Big Ten’s final offer of a seven-year, $380 million agreement, which would have included rights to fewer marquee games than the network’s current agreement. The offer did not include a direct-to-consumer package, which ESPN valued through its growth of ESPN+.
It makes sense they may have felt the value wasn’t there. ESPN doesn’t need the B10 at all. They could’ve gotten marquee games if they outbid CBS or NBC, but then the B10 would’ve wanted an exclusive window – that’s what ESPN couldn’t match. So that may have moved ESPN down to 4th pick status.
No DTC package doesn’t sound right to me. Peacock is getting games, and Amazon is still in discussions. Maybe DTC cost more and they didn’t want to pay? Or maybe the B10 didn’t want exclusive ESPN+ games (nobody has said if Peacock has exclusive games or not)?
I want to see the game and pick splits first, then evaluate the money. Let’s say CBS and NBC each get 14 games and split #2 and #3 picks equally, and that’s worth $350M. The matching 14 #1 picks have to be worth considerably more. But Fox had 24-27 games before, so that could be another 14 for FS1 as well. The CCG should be worth big money as well – $75-100M per year?So Fox should be paying $600-800M. Then there’s the BTN package, which should pay $50M at least. And is there an Amazon package? Is MBB lumped into CBS’s $350M?
LikeLike
What does package A and package B mean? That’s how Ourand described it.
Maybe that refers to the current model, where Fox has the A package and ESPN the B package. They have about the same number of games, and Fox paid more to get the 1st choice of weeks for the #1 pick (OSU-MI game).
So let’s assume Fox is basically keeping their chunk, but CBS and NBC are splitting the ESPN package. Does that mean 1 package gets picks 1 and 3, the other 2 and 4? Or is it 1 and 4 vs 2 and 3? The money will vary depending on how they split things up.
And how will NBC deal with ND night games? Will those go away so it’s always B10 at 8pm, or will NBC use a #4 pick for an afternoon game those weeks?
Why did the B10 agree to games on Peacock, and are those exclusive or not?
LikeLike
It is presumably what Fox got and what Fox didn’t. Whether or not the B package that CBS/NBC got directly compares to what ESPN had before remains to be seen. Like you said the number of games match up, but the spots in the draft may not.
LikeLike
My guess is that ND will either go back to having all afternoon games or, more likely NBC and CBS may swap time slots the 2 to 3 times per year where ND has a home prime time game. Note that NBC has chosen ND-USC as a prime time game ever since ND allowed home games to be moved from the afternoon, so that’s at least one regularly scheduled Big Ten-ND matchup.
I’d wager that the Peacock games are exclusive and the reason why the Big Ten agreed to them is probably for the simple fact that NBC is throwing them a LOT of money. Comcast seems to be in desperation mode with Peacock and they can justify spending big on the Big Ten to Wall Street if it has a component to boost Peacock subscribers (which stalled last quarter).
LikeLike
It seems like the B10 wants to brand each time slot, so “Big Ten at Big Noon”, “Big Ten on CBS” and “NBC Big Ten Primetime” (something like that), so I doubt the B10 would be willing to allow ND home games to take the NBC primetime slot.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree that NBC probably built in the ability to get some ND primetime games. I’d guess there is a max number per season (they can always host a B10 team and not worry about it). I don’t think CBS wants many primetime games. Perhaps CBS gets a doubleheader on the days NBC wants ND instead.
NBC must pay back the B10 for allowing this, though. Did they just pay more for the privilege, or is there something else they did? Are they doing a doubleheader some weekends when CBS can’t show a 3:30 game (is there such a week?)? What is NBC airing mid-day when ND plays on the road?
We know Peacock will be co-streaming all the games NBC shows. That’s the bare minimum. I just don’t know how many games the B10 wants to take away from BTN and other visible outlets to bury on Peacock. Fox/FS1 + CBS + NBC = 26+13+13=52 games as a minimum. BTN used to have about 46 games, many of those crappy OOC games overlapping on overflow channels. The current contract requires everyone to appear on BTN at least twice, and at least once in a conference game. That’s probably 20-25 games. The overlapping games would be the easiest games to move to Peacock if they get exclusive games. Better games would make it hard to satisfy every network’s needs, unless they relax the BTN appearances rules.
LikeLike
Frank,
If nothing else, NBC can always show ND/USC in primetime. And any B10 @ ND OOC game. Maybe they don’t get to put ACC games on in primetime anymore? Or just 1 per year, and there’s some tradeoff they make for doing it?
LikeLike
Now that we know roughly how things the TV coverage will play out with the B1G, what happens with the P12-2 and the big12?
Right now here’s what we know or have strong reason to believe:
NOON: FOX (B1G#1); ABC (ACC #1 or SEC #3, generally); NBC (likely n/a); CBS (service academies – sometimes)
3:30p: FOX (? or MWC); ABC (SEC 1a); NBC (ND 1/2 the season); CBS (B1G 2a)
Primetime: FOX (MWC or likely n/a); ABC (SEC 1b or ND at highly ranked ACC); NBC (B1G 2b); CBS (likely n/a)
Does FOX fill in the 3:30p timeslot with the big 12? They could also include the big 12 at noon on FS1, and maybe Friday night on FS1, with the rest streaming on ESPN+ or Apple or Amazon.
Is the P12-2 now worth more or less to Disney? Without the B1G, Disney still has plenty of space on ESPN/2/U/news/+ for the Pac. Since the MWC is now with FOX/FS1/CBS/CBSSN, the Pac is the only other alternative for late night football. Disney could offer the Pac a Friday doubleheader, Pac after Dark on Saturday, and an ESPN/2 3:30p slot with the rest going to ESPN+
LikeLike
If I’m the PAC I’m trying to get as many OTA windows as possible in the hopes it depresses the Big 12 contract coming up. If they can find another OTA network or two (preferably FOX and NBC) to partner with ESPN they might keep most of the Big 12 on cable or streaming.
LikeLike
I think the P12 is thrilled to see ESPN needing content. It will mean lots of night games, though. Fox might bid them up for some daytime filler, or take the B12 instead. Or maybe Fox will go for both. I think ESPN may back off on the B12 unless they need content when that negotiation comes around.
I look for both conferences to face a lot of streaming – ESPN+ will want content.
LikeLike
Fox will definitely want the B12. If they don’t want the Pac and can’t have any of the SEC and ACC, they’ll need the B12 for a bunch of games past noon.
ESPN would want the Pac, and possibly the B12 for inventory too.
Looks like bidding for the Pac will be ESPN & streamers.
For the B12, Fox, probably ESPN, and streamers.
LikeLike
Didn’t Kevin Warren say something about how this new media deal would be looked back on as having changed things in the sport, or something? Does anyone see anything revolutionary here (yet)? The 3 exclusive OTA windows is nice, but not much better than what the SEC will have soon.
LikeLike
Wilner weighs in on the ESPN/Big Ten news
ESPN could be incentivized to offer a contract that helps keep the Pac-12 intact.
If the network comes with a lowball offer and the conference fractures, the most valuable remaining football programs likely would jump to the Big 12.
That leaves open the potential for Fox to go all-in with the Big 12 when negotiations begin in two years and effectively lock ESPN out of college football in the western half of the country.
At the very least, the fierce competition would drive the price far beyond what ESPN hopes to pay to share rights to a super-conference that directly competes (for broadcast windows) with its prized possession, the SEC.
[snip]
The most likely outcome, based on what we know today — and acknowledging the situation is highly fluid — is the following:
ESPN goes all-in with the Pac-12 at a satisfactory price point for the conference, thus locking up the competition-free windows in prime time across the Pacific Time Zone
LikeLike
Notre Dame notwithstanding, I will be shocked if the B1G doesn’t move on Oregon/Washington before ESPN can lock them in long term. The value of ‘owning’ the whole of the West Coast (and it’s after dark window) is surely not lost on Fox or the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Problem is that only ND and maybe FSU aren’t dilutive now.
That 4th window is worth something, but not mucho dollars. There’s a reason why one of those 4mm+ viewer games never is during that window.
LikeLike
Maybe Fox and the B10 view that value differently than you do. Those games have a ratings ceiling that limits their value. Fox can get much of the same value with MWC games for a small fraction of the cost.
LikeLike
Lock in from what?
While I think the Big Ten is likely to grab 2 more schools in the West, there’s no reason to do it now.
Whichever schools you want will always be there.
UW, Stanford, Oregon will always be there.
Any 1, 2, 3 can be added if/when other schools are added or if needed later.
Washington/Stanford both make long-term sense imo but need the right partners.
LikeLike
I assume a GOR, but the P12 should be looking at a short deal.
LikeLike
Yeah anything substantially less than a 10-12 year GoR isn’t really that prohibitive. The Pac-12 schools will be available often enough for realignment.
LikeLike
Some details on why ESPN passed on B10 games:
LikeLike
This makes it sound like CBS was locked in with their 3:30 package getting 2nd/3rd picks, and the last choice was NBC vs ESPN for primetime. It also make it sound like Fox gets all the #1 picks.
That implies that Fox should be paying a lot more than CBS and NBC, more than the $500M that was reported, unless they split the games into 3 equal packages. Maybe that was a pre-USC/UCLA number?
LikeLike
With Fox bidding before any competitors and Fox being the media advisor It should come as no surprise that Fox got the best deal of the 3 packages. I doubt USC/UCLA adds much value to this package. Fox can only take 1 game with the first choice. How many weeks would that be USC or UCLA when you already have tOSU, MI, PSU, WI, MSU, NE games to choose from? It is sort of the same problem that the SEC had with the CBS package — the addition of TX/OK does little to increase the value since there were already great games almost every week. It actually makes the second pick more valuable since it increases the probability of 2 great games in a week.
LikeLike
Both the 2nd and 3rd picks.
LikeLike
The expansion added a huge market to the footprint for these games. Suddenly fans in LA have a much bigger reason to care about any B10 game. That adds a lot of value to all of the packages.
If the other 2 are paying over $700M combined, that is too much of a good deal for Fox if they are keeping their 26ish games. Especially if that $500M includes the CCG. In the current deal, Fox paid $60M extra to get the CCG and the first #1 choice. That was compared to $190M ESPN paid. Well if ESPN’s half is now worth over $700M, then so is Fox’s. Just the CCG + first #1 pick should be worth at least $100M. That would say Fox is basically getting 26 games for the price of 15 games.
LikeLike
Actually, even if it’s just 13 games but first pick each week, thus OSU-UMich + the B10 CCG, Fox still did much better than CBS and NBC (4th picks each week aren’t worth a lot).
Unless the B10 protected some games for NBC and CBS (like the PSU white out game and USC and UCLA home games.
But who really made out like a bandit is ESPN with it’s SEC deals.
LikeLike
I’m very skeptical that FOX is getting the #1 game every week with CBS and NBC granting guaranteed OTA slots every week. My feeling is that there’s a lot of confusion or misunderstanding of what the “A” package means. FOX has the “A” package for the Big Ten today, but as others have noted, that was really equal to ESPN’s package outside of FOX also having the Big Ten conference championship game and the top choice of the specific week where it got the #1 game (which was always rivalry week to get Michigan-Ohio State).
NBC and CBS are really providing more guaranteed exposure than ESPN with worse games by comparison? That would make little sense to me, but if Kevin Warren actually pulled that off, he’s a magician.
LikeLike
Yeah, that makes more sense considering that the difference between $500mm and $380mm is just a little more than just the CCG. Even then, Fox gets a pretty good deal.
To get NBC and CBS to pay what they did, the B10 may have guaranteed them the PSU white out game and USC and UCLA home games. The B10 is trying to get schools to move a game to Black Friday (no schools volunteering so far). That makes a lot of sense: UNL-Iowa for CBS in the afternoon, PSU/MSU/RU/UMD visiting UCLA in primetime for NBC. Something else on Fox in the morning. NBC may get a guarantee of a USC home game vs ND/PSU/MSU Thanksgiving week (when the original 14 B10 schools won’t want to play at night).
LikeLike
My pitch for a second Big Ten Black Friday game: Northwestern vs. Illinois at Wrigley Field as an annual neutral site game. Both schools have terrible home attendance on Thanksgiving Day weekend (even more than usual), but the game they had at Wrigley a few years ago had an electric atmosphere even with two mediocre teams. It’s great for TV, more of both schools’ students are actually going to be in the Chicago area that weekend as opposed to near campus, it can be a new Thanksgiving weekend tradition for Chicago, and it puts a unique spin on a matchup that would otherwise be behind 30 other rivalry games that weekend.
Not sure if those schools will take my advice, but I guarantee that it’s better than stadiums in Champaign and Evanston being 30% full.
LikeLike
Frank: “My pitch for a second Big Ten Black Friday game: Northwestern vs. Illinois at Wrigley Field as an annual neutral site game. Both schools have terrible home attendance on Thanksgiving Day weekend . . .”
NW-Illini in Chicago and Purdue-Indiana in Indpls would be a great Big Ten doubleheader for Black Friday. The Old Oaken Bucket game would have much better attendance than Bloomington or West Lafayette and both schools could include the ticket in their season ticket package each year.
LikeLike
Frank,
I get that for UIUC fans and students, but Evanston vs Wrigley shouldn’t make much difference to the NW side. I suppose it can’t hurt, but won’t NW want to host that game at home when their new stadium is ready?
I’d think a 5pm game in LA would make a great option, especially if UCLA is hosting. A little holiday Rose Bowl action. They could rotate through non-USC opponents when USC is playing ND.
LikeLike
Northwestern already has a deal to play games regularly at Wrigley Field and it always has to be a November game due to the chance of the Cubs making it to the playoffs. (That’s of course not happening this year.) So, this would essentially incorporate that existing Northwestern deal.
LikeLike
Frank, I think that’s a great idea, but it seems that neither NU or UIUC are jumping on that train (unless they get pushed on somehow). Which indeed is a pity. Some folks really need to be more forward-looking.
LikeLike
Frank,
If they just need the Cubs out of the playoffs, they could play there Week 0 every year.
That NW deal is only through 2026 I think. I’m not saying they won’t or shouldn’t extend it, but as a completely neutral TV viewer that site has never been anything special. It just feels gimmicky to me when football is played on a baseball field (same in NYC – it’s not Wrigley specific). I know it has a history in Chicago. If it makes for a better in-stadium atmosphere, great.
I was just throwing out another option in case NW and/or IL don’t want a Friday game.
LikeLike
Richard: “The B10 is trying to get schools to move a game to Black Friday (no schools volunteering so far).”
Purdue has volunteered for decades. The Boilers want to move the Old Oaken Bucket game to Lucas Oil Stadium in Indpls on Black Friday rather than playing on an empty campus. Half the students are in Indpls for Thanksgiving. Indiana refuses to do it.
LikeLike
Frank,
I agree, I think we should consider it like CBS and NBC are splitting what ESPN currently has. That means Fox gets the #1 pick 7 times (incl. OSU-MI), and CBS and NBC get it 3-4 times each.
The question is how they’ll split the #2 and 3 selections. When Fox goes first, I assume CBS and NBC take turns going second. Does Fox get #2 the other 7 weeks, or do they get #2 4 times and #3 3 times? Does the #4 pick ever get in the rotation, or does Fox/FS12 always get #4?
LikeLike
Brian: “When Fox goes first, I assume CBS and NBC take turns going second.”
Do we yet know how NBC is doing this? We know they want Big Ten doubleheaders for ND home games but what do they plan to do with weekends when they don’t have ND at home?
LikeLike
Coiln,
No, we don’t really know anything, but it has been reported that NBC will have a weekly primetime B10 game. They could be wrong abut that, but they also are reporting similar prices for CBS and NBC which makes it likely they get the same number of games.
When ND has a bye or a road game, maybe they just have the night game. I don’t think CBS wants OTA competition at 3:30. We’ll find out soon.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-conference-gets-a
Some tidbits from Canzano I haven’t seen before.
Fox locked up the Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten weeks ago for an estimated $500 million a year. NBC and CBS are likely coming at $380 million and $350 million each for the second and third positions. Total estimated take: $1.23 billion.
Does that $500M include the CCG? If so, how many other games? It sounds like a 13 + CCG + first #1 pick price, unless the other 13 games have very low value to them. The other 2 are paying $365M average for 13 games and not the first #1 pick.
LikeLike
And what does first/second/third pick mean?
Before, Fox and ESPN essentially had equal packages except Fox paid extra for the CCG and first overall pick (then they’d alternate picking which weeks they picked first).
Are these for first/second/third pick for which weeks they will pick first (and second and third)
?That would actually make more sense than Fox getting the first pick every week since I’d expect the B10 CCG to be worth almost $120mm by itself.
Also, does this include the streaming component (with the 4th pick)? With 72 conference games, you can actually have 4 picks a week (each with 15 “weeks”; Black Friday can be counted as a “week” and the weekday games before the first Saturday of the year too during a regular season with 13 weeks).
LikeLike
So if my supposition is correct that this is actually first/second/third pick for which weeks they will pick first (and second and third), then the B10 #1 game every week will move through all 3 timeslots.
That means ABC will also move the SEC #1 game every week around to different time slots (to match against the B10 #3 game every week).
LikeLike
So now we have
Fox at 12:00 – $500 million – an unknown number of games
CBS at 3:30 – $350 million – 1 game
NBC at 6:30 – $380 million – 1 game
That is $1.23 billion.
I have seen some references to “up to $1.5 billion.” in media rights and, separately, a “4th window”, presumably 9:30. Is this the last piece of the puzzle? A 4th pick at the 9:30 window for $270m? I assume that USC and UCLA would be prime candidates for that slot, and a few of the central time folks could be willing to play an 8:30 game on occasion. I don’t see any way to get to $1.5 billion other than another time slot and someone else with deep pockets (Apple? Amazon?)
LikeLike
Xerxes you haven’t accounted for any BTN revenue in your $1.23 billion isn’t equaling $1.5 billion.
LikeLike
Xerxes,
There was one report that the B10 hoped to get up to $1.5B. Nobody has ever said the B10 would get that. Before expansion, $1B was the goal, and Bob Thompson estimated USC and UCLA as being worth $200M.
Even the numbers you have may be wrong, especially the Fox number. I only saw that from Canzano.
We also don’t know what all is included and what isn’t. Is BTN separate from Fox, or included? Does that include Fox’s FS1 games and the CCG? Will Amazon get anything? Does that include MBB?
LikeLike
That CBS College Football theme is Tesh-tastic even if he didn’t write it.
LikeLike
Read into this what you want. I think it will be ND announcing their new TV deal and that they are staying independent for now.
LikeLike
View at Medium.com
Which teams overperform on TV? This study compared viewers to the average for that window on that network, since 2014 (skipping 2020). Like all studies, this one has flaws.
98 schools made the list (must have played at least 10 games in the 34 most common network windows). The key point is that 45 schools (#16-60) are within 10% of average.
Top 10
1 Ohio State: +66.18 %
2 Michigan: +49.00 %
3 Alabama: +47.37 %
4 Nebraska: +37.26 %
5 Penn State: +31.61 %
6 LSU: +27.62 %
7 Texas: +27.02 %
8 Auburn: +24.16 %
9 Michigan State: +22.34 %
10 Florida State: +20.09 %
22 Notre Dame: +7.00 %
Seems reasonable. ND is probably low since they often play in their own window, which dilutes their impact. Likewise for Navy, as the Army-Navy game has no impact.
B10 (average = +13.26%)
1 Ohio State: +66.18 %
2 Michigan: +49.00 %
4 Nebraska: +37.26 %
5 Penn State: +31.61 %
9 Michigan State: +22.34 %
11 Iowa: +18.23 %
18 Indiana: +9.04 %
19 Minnesota: +8.99 %
23 Wisconsin: +6.64 %
30 Southern Cal: +3.94 %
34 Illinois: +1.82 %
44 Maryland: -3.23 %
49 Rutgers: -6.52 %
56 Purdue: -8.23 %
59 UCLA: -9.01 %
72 Northwestern: -15.84 %
ACC (average = -1.50%)
10 Florida State: +20.09 %
26 Clemson: +5.95 %
28 Virginia: +5.01 %
29 Louisville: +4.61 %
31 Virginia Tech: +3.48 %
36 Pittsburgh: +0.76 %
38 Duke: -0.19 %
42 NC State: -2.82 %
43 Georgia Tech: -3.04 %
48 Miami: -6.46 %
50 Syracuse: -6.56 %
69 Boston College: -14.29 %
80 Wake Forest: -25.99 %
UNC didn’t make the list – I think that’s an omission and not a lack of games.
B12 (average = -7.67% if ignore KU and bottom G5)
13 West Virginia: +11.11 %
40 Oklahoma State: -1.28 %
47 BYU: -6.37 %
54 Baylor: -7.74 %
60 Iowa State: -9.92 %
61 Kansas State: -10.15 %
62 Texas Tech: -10.87 %
73 TCU: -18.50 %
87 Cincinnati: -31.85 %
89 Houston: -33.59 %
90 Kansas: -34.63 %
92 UCF: -37.44 %
TCU and KU well below average, and ignore the values for the G5 (except BYU).
P12 (average = -2.00%)
20 Washington: +8.69 %
21 Colorado: +7.26 %
24 Oregon: +6.42 %
32 Washington State: +3.34 %
41 Arizona State: -1.56 %
52 Arizona: -7.26 %
53 Stanford: -7.28 %
57 Utah: -8.72 %
58 California: -8.94 %
66 Oregon State: -11.95 %
All about average.
Expansion candidates:
67 Fresno State: -12.78 %
78 Colorado State: -22.80 %
79 Utah State: -25.98 %
81 UNLV: -26.31 %
83 Hawaii: -28.10 %
84 Nevada: -29.77 %
93 South Florida: -37.77 %
95 San Diego State: -43.47 %
96 SMU: -44.72 %
98 Memphis: -45.43 %
Fresno is by far the best of the bunch here. The actual value doesn’t mean much since they ‘re compared to P5 games.
LikeLike
N. Illinois +9.75% and Boise State +5.97% were far and away the best G5 schools on the list … so good you have to question the value, or maybe the opponents got them there. In that respect I am surprised that annual TX/OK/WV games (#7,#12,#13) did not boost TCU higher than a -18.5%.
LikeLike
WVU is still only a little above average. And yes, TCU is a small private with a small fanbase.
And context matters. NIU is the king of MACtion slots but that doesn’t mean much when those games get tiny average viewership.
LikeLike
What this study really tells me is that only a dozen schools (+ ND, who is likely underrated by this methodology as so many of it’s games on NBC are compared only against itself) move the needle, and they all are or will be in either the B10 or SEC except for ND and FSU.
LikeLike
We shall see. . . .
If Fox always puts #1 pick on at noon, that means they will never show USC and UCLA at home. There will be riots in LA if they have 9am games. That certainly makes the “B” package much more valuable to CBS and NBC.
Lastly, Fox currently shows a lot of Pac and Big 12 games. It seems to me that Pac less the L.A. schools will still generate better ratings than Big 12 less Texas & Oklahoma. So why wouldn’t Fox go for Pac games in its open windows? Aside from the “after dark” slot, will ESPN be willing to offer the Pac much that is appealing? Would they pay up to put the Pac on ESPN+? If not, wouldn’t Pac be better off on Fox for non-after dark games?
LikeLike
Redwood,
Fox will most likely get either half of the #1 picks, or 1/3 of them (depends how this A and B package split works). They will find times to show the LA schools, but I doubt they ask for home games at 9am.
P12 has slightly better brands, but the B12 footprint has more fervent CFB fans. It’s probably a wash. Fox already has the MWC I believe, so they can show them at 10:30. Beyond that, who knows what they want? We don’t know how many more games they need.
We also don’t know how much ESPN might pay for the P12. They might just choose to top every Fox bid, especially if they can put stuff on ESPN+. They may also be looking to work an ACC/P12 combo for the ACCN by adding the P12N to it. That’s all easier if they have all the rights.
LikeLike
Brian – I agree. Disney goes all in on the PAC with the $380m they just saved, fills spots that the SEC & ACC can’t on ESPN/2/U/news, and sends the PTN to ESPN+. Disney may overpay slightly to keep the B1G from taking Bay Area and Pac NW schools.
ACC & PAC have Friday night doubleheaders on ESPN. A merger isn’t out of the question.
Disney probably doesn’t even bid on the big 12.
I really think the B1G should take UW, UO, Cal & Stanford now and break up the PAC. They are getting more money than they probably ever expected and can afford to be generous. Plus, they would have enough content to finally make FS1 a real network.
LikeLike
I just don’t think they want to go past 16 at the moment. I’m not convinced they ever do. If they wanted those 4, they should’ve added them before this new TV deal. Now I think they are waiting for a structural change (new CFP revenue model, NCAA changes, etc.) that would make getting that large without ND to make sense.
LikeLike
I think the Pac-12 Network content ends up on some combo of the current ACC Network (the Paclantic Network?) and ESPN+. Putting late night Pac-12 football and basketball games onto the ACC Network would turn it into closer to a national 24/7 network.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how that really benefits the Big Ten though. In the current climate I just don’t see sufficient non-financial benefits to offset the fact the Big Ten would be taking a paycut to add those four even though the Big Ten could probably afford to.
LikeLike
Yeah, while I’m all for the Big26 for non-TV payout reasons, the financials are hard to justify.
LikeLike
There will be riots in LA if they have 9am games.
I don’t recall the riots.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30285271/how-usc-arizona-state-pac-12-pulled-9-local-kickoff
LikeLike
No riots, but no tickets sold either since it was a covid year game. LA sees 10am NFL and 9am college games (not local) on TV all the time. Just another made for TV event. Only the players needed to wake up early. Ticket sales still provide significant revenues for many schools. Oklahoma complained about the number of 11am (Big Noon Eastern) start times it was getting.
LikeLike
What odds on offer to me that ND announces it is joining the big 10?
LikeLike
Redwood86: “What odds on offer to me that ND announces it is joining the big 10?”
I will wager my home, my cars, my stock portfolio and my bank accounts against your wager of one donut that ND does NOT announce the Irish are joining the Big Ten. I prefer glazed yeast donuts.
LikeLike
Krispy Kreme? I miss those, hot off the machine.
LikeLike
Redwood,
You have to put a timeframe on it. Announces tomorrow at that thing I linked? Announces before Halloween? Before the end of the year? Before the 2024 season starts? Before 2030? Before 2036?
LikeLike
https://cyclonefanatic.com/podcasts/cw-pod-with-pac-12-writer-jon-wilner/
An ISU website runner interviews Jon Wilner in a podcast. They talk about realignment, networks, and cultural differences between the B12 and P12 among other things.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson on 365 Sports talking realignment and TV deals. Lots of P12 vs B12 discussion, plus B10 media deal.
LikeLike
The issue with NC is not a lack of CFB interest. There are plenty of football fans, they just follow many different NC and non-NC teams. East Carolina has a large and loyal fan base. So does App State out west. NC State and UNC also have their followers, alumni, casual supporters, etc. Throw in a few Wake and Duke fans for good measure. Then add all the B1G alumni transplants and SEC folks. The TVs are on they just don’t have a single team to galvanize around (e.g., UNL in Nebraska). UNC is that to a lesser degree but for MBB only. The question for the B1G and SEC is can UNC (or anyone else) ever be that for football? The jury is out.
LikeLike
IMO, I doubt it. UNC is a pretty small public.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s a good summary (and it matches the point I brought up about NC in general):
It’s a very strong state for cfb viewership and it’s got the big population.
The problem is there’s no unifying brand. Nobody has had a 20 year run like what Beamer did in Virginia to position Va Tech as the main football brand in much of the state outside of UVa’s territories.
UNC probably has the most potential to do it because their athletics brand makes them a much better recruiting school than NC State (and those 2 are the only realistic possibilities). NC State is the bigger school and draws a bit more local support, but recruiting wise they’re an afterthought.
The question is just does either ever put it together and would you bet on one to do so?
I think it’s worth betting on UNC for the Big Ten or SEC (and I assume both would be willing to make that bet).
LikeLike
I’m not convinced UNC and UVA going to the B1G helps the B1G much if the SEC takes NCSU and VT. All that accomplishes is splitting up the markets more than they already are. Not sure how it makes sense for either league given the payout threshold created by the USC/UCLA and UT/OU additions. The only real way to lock up the VA/NC market would be to take all 4, and that doesn’t make financial sense for either league at the moment. And toss in Duke MBB as a variable, and it becomes a tough riddle to solve.
LikeLike
Yeah there’s no really clear solution to it.
LikeLike
Nicole Auerbach and Ari Wasserman appeared on Andy Staple’s podcast today to discuss the B10 TV deal, and why they think the B10 doesn’t “need” ESPN anymore. Also what happens next for the B12, P12, and the networks.
LikeLike
When they talk about ESPN being unimportant, they are speaking like serious sports freaks. The casual fan (not people on this board), will be impacted by ESPN’s emphasis. I suspect Big 10 will be ignored unless you are Ohio St., Michigan or USC–and they won’t get as much coverage.
LikeLike
Exactly. The casual fan is who matters in this discussion, and they are not like sports writers/bloggers or us. They are more likely to live in the ESPN ecosystem if/when they want some quick sports news or highlights.
It wouldn’t be as much of an issue if Fox hadn’t completely destroyed their website. Maybe CBS and NBC will make up for that lack, at least. Their sites are usable. Can the B10 work with all 3 to coordinate efforts a bit? Get some consistent branding or something? None of them have the whole package that ESPN does, unfortunately.
LikeLike
I agree with both of you that there will be less discussion of the Big Ten teams on ESPN and that it will impact casual viewers.
The question is just how much that matters.
It mattered a ton 10-20 years ago when ESPN was the only game in town and Gameday reigned supreme; it matters considerably less now. Back then everybody started and ended their Saturday on ESPN. ESPN had total control of the narrative; they owned the entire postseason which will continue until 2025.
But in just a few years, Big Noon Kickoff has come to match Gameday in ratings because it feeds into a bigger game. Obviously that may change as ESPN puts better games at noon, but the shift of Big Ten viewers is permanent.
Now you have a clear Saturday flowthrough from Big Noon Kickoff through CBS and NBC for Big Ten in a way that provides national spotlights and excludes ESPN. That was never possible before.
ESPN is still important for day to day sports news, but Twitter is often a first source of sports information, and there’s tons of different ways in which people consume sports news whether on Youtube/podcasts and other forms of media.
Yes, ESPN.com is hard to avoid and ESPN still is the primary source of news, and Fox Sports should try to go head-to-head with ESPN on those issues.
But I’d really wait and see what the postseason looks like after 2025. We could see big changes that will likely see a much more NFL-looking postseason.
LikeLike
Whether it’s 12 or 16 in the first round, it’d be great to have those game spread over each of the networks…FOX, CBS, NBC, and ESPN. And with the Big Ten’s new deal, that becomes feasible. All are “college football networks.” 10 years ago, NBC was ND…CBS was 1 SEC game…and FOX was nothing. Now…FOX has a huge market (some Big Ten, some Pac-12, some Big 12). As the sport spreads over these networks more evenly, the future playoff is ripe for the NFL model.
I personally enjoy having major CFB over the air for free. Power to the people. My dad missed a lot of major games in the final years of his life because he couldn’t afford an ESPN cable package and they dominated so much of broadcasting.
LikeLike
Being impatient, but wasn’t Swarbrick’s town hall meeting at 10a today?
LikeLike
https://giving.nd.edu/watch/
It starts at 12pm.
LikeLike
Brian: “It starts at 12pm.”
Not sure how I managed to think it was at 10a but thanks. Explains why this thread was so mysteriously quiet as 10a came and went.
LikeLike
If anyone is interested. No real news. He sounded very comfortable and confident about ND’s continued independence.
When asked about the future of independence:
1. Dependent on dedicated national broadcaster
2. Payout must be enough to be competitive
3. Must be able to compete for national championship in all sports
4. Travel and athlete experience matters – complained about non-revenue sports trips to FSU taking 16 hours
He likes the B10’s media deal. He feels more CFB on NBC is good for ND.
He thinks the B10 and SEC may eventually go to 20, but nothing imminent. He didn’t think a P3 arrangement was likely due to contracts and other complications.
LikeLike
Brian: “Travel and athlete experience matters – complained about non-revenue sports trips to FSU taking 16 hours”
You can just feel the excitement about joining a coast-to-coast B10, can’t you? Surely it will be any day now…
That being said, I always find it amusing when AD’s complain about “the athlete experience” and travel concerns… for Olympic sports. Rarely seems to be such concerns for the revenue generating sports. If there were, maybe Swarbrick would also complain about that forced rivalry with Stanford.
Either way, if there was anyone here that was convinced ND->B10 was happening soon, I’d say Swarbrick once again likely dashed those hopes.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
Brian: “Travel and athlete experience matters – complained about non-revenue sports trips to FSU taking 16 hours”
You can just feel the excitement about joining a coast-to-coast B10, can’t you? Surely it will be any day now…
I noted that he chose FSU to complain about and not Miami. Schools near large cities are easier and faster to get to. For ND, their longest B10 trips would be to LA, Newark, and DC with short drives to the schools. There are non-stop flights to State College, Omaha, Madison, and Iowa City from Chicago. Being in the middle of the B10 footprint, they’d travel a lot less on average than they do in the ACC.
That being said, I always find it amusing when AD’s complain about “the athlete experience” and travel concerns… for Olympic sports. Rarely seems to be such concerns for the revenue generating sports. If there were, maybe Swarbrick would also complain about that forced rivalry with Stanford.
Well, non-revenue sports usual take a bus or fly commercial. Revenue sports can charter flights more often, and CFB plays on the weekend. Weeknight games are the bigger concern.
Either way, if there was anyone here that was convinced ND->B10 was happening soon, I’d say Swarbrick once again likely dashed those hopes.
You’d think, but hope spring eternal. Those who believe will claim he was saying what he had to say while negotiations are ongoing.
LikeLike
16 hours is about the time it takes a bus to travel from South Bend IN to Tallahassee, FL. There are flights, but not many. It is 2 hours to Chicago so ND would probably bus for Olympic sports to B1G locations: 4 hours to Madison, 5 hours to Iowa City, 8 to State College. Small city to small city adds a lot of connection time due to limited flights compared to going between 2 large cities.
LikeLike
Maybe if he didn’t want to burden his non-revenue athletes with long travel times, ND shouldn’t have joined a league where they are a geographic outlier.
LikeLike
Little8,
Well, he began by saying it starts with a trip to Midway, so I assume he meant they fly. But FSU might be quite a bus ride from the airport.
LikeLike
(WordPress has been… difficult… with letting me post replies now for whatever reason. Likely because we’re now over 2000 replies in the post. Attempt #4 to reply to this.)
Brian: “You’d think, but hope spring eternal. Those who believe will claim he was saying what he had to say while negotiations are ongoing.”
That feels like some conspiracy-level thinking going on. Granted, he didn’t outright say it’ll never happen, but it sure read like his stance is pretty clear (and consistent): So long as it’s possible to be independent that’s what they’ll do because that’s what they truly want.
That said, I still can’t help but wonder what the breaking point is for it all. If the B10 nets $120-130mil this cycle without ND, it doesn’t feel insane to think with ND would be $140-150mil. ND right now is hoping for, what, $90mil?
So, hypothetically, they could be leaving potentially $60mil on the table for that independence. And, sure, it’s not all about money, ND doesn’t necessarily need the money, etc. But it’s also at best purchasing quasi independence.
They’re already in a conference for every sport aside from football. Their ACC football agreement is five games a year, plus they have to schedule a west coast team (USC, Stanford) to maintain exposure out there. So there’s five slots taken and one region locked every year right off the bat. A B10 schedule is nine games, plus the B10 can now guarantee at least one of those is a west coast game every year in USC (and maybe Stanford or even UCLA). So that $60mil (hypothetical) opportunity cost buys them… three game slots a year? They’d be paying almost $20mil/game just to pick a few more non-B10 teams.
When they actually do pick non-B10 teams with those slots. In 2021 their OOC games were: USC, Stanford, Navy, Cincy, Purdue, Toledo, and Wisconsin. USC is a wash obviously. But instead of picking three out of {Stanford, Navy, Cincy, Purdue, Toledo, Wisconsin} they’re happy skipping $60mil every year to play all six, and two of those teams B10 teams anyway.
2019 OOC was: New Mexico, Georgia, Bowling Green, USC, Michigan, Navy, Stanford. If you remove Michigan and USC as B10 teams, that list doesn’t look that different from OSU’s OOC preference of one premier team and three buy-ins. Especially if Stanford were to be the partner in joining the B10.
I guess, for me, I get that independence is the ND identity. But it feels like they already sold out that identity in 2013 so why not finish the job.
LikeLike
manifesto: “ND right now is hoping for, what, $90mil?”
https://sports.yahoo.com/notre-dame-ad-big-ten-195840753.html
Swarbrick sounds delighted so my hunch is that the Big Ten got hosed on the NBC deal, but I guess we’ll wait to see the details when announced.
LikeLike
Colin – I think Swarbrick did a little back of the napkin math on the B1G/NBC deal and that’s why he’s so happy.
B1G 14 games at $350m = $25m per game.
ND has 7 games on NBC. Using B1G price per game that’s $175m.
Apples and oranges you say? OK, let’s say ND’s 7 games are half as valuable as the NBC/B1G package. That’s still $12.5m x 7 = $87.5m. Let’s say ND is only worth one-third, its still $57.75m.
Put NBC’s $57.75 together with the ACC money ($8-10m) and let’s say CFP money estimated to be $10m when they don’t make it and $32m when they do. Say they only make the expanded CFP once every four years, that’s still – worst case scenario – an average of $81.25m per year.
And it keeps the alums happy!
https://theathletic.com/2651900/2021/06/15/college-footballs-staggering-2-billion-option-how-a-new-playoff-could-triple-the-payout/
LikeLike
If Notre Dame came in with Stanford that would be 8 B1G games in 2019 and 9 in 2021 if the ACC 5 were replaced with B1G games. Maybe Notre Dame just does not want anyone telling them they have to play on Friday nights.
LikeLike
Colin: “Swarbrick sounds delighted so my hunch is that the Big Ten got hosed on the NBC deal, but I guess we’ll wait to see the details when announced.”
If the B10 pulls a combined $1.3bil or whatever else has been rumored it’s going to be hard to say they got hosed. They may have also given up a little cash for some flexibility on things like streaming, what games go where, how easy it is to scale the deal with new members, etc.
I mean, if ND wants to stay independent and it’s worth that much to them, then have at it. I think they’d be a great fit in the B10 now, but the B10 won’t starve if they don’t feel the same. For me it’s just looking at the numbers and not understanding the math, because they haven’t been truly independent in a while now. Having the flexibility to schedule seven games (well, six if they insist on one being USC, five if Stanford needs to be there as well) instead of three isn’t independence, it’s the same leash with more slack.
LikeLike
manifesto: “If the B10 pulls a combined $1.3bil or whatever else has been rumored it’s going to be hard to say they got hosed. They may have also given up a little cash for some flexibility . . .”
That’s not what I’m talking about. If NBC airs a doubleheader with ND vs Marshall and Michigan State vs Wisconsin, how much does ND get paid and how much does the Big Ten get? Bear in mind that NBC didn’t have any viable options for ‘shoulder programming’ whereas we know that that ESPN was willing to pay essentialy the same for a piece of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Brian, the Tallahassee airport is short drive from the campus. The closest major airport to Tallahassee is Jacksonville, which is about a 2 1/2 hour drive.
The problem is that the capital of Florida has a tiny airport with very few direct flights to anywhere except major airports. There are at least some direct flights between TLH and Chicago.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
Brian: “You’d think, but hope spring eternal. Those who believe will claim he was saying what he had to say while negotiations are ongoing.”
That feels like some conspiracy-level thinking going on. Granted, he didn’t outright say it’ll never happen, but it sure read like his stance is pretty clear (and consistent): So long as it’s possible to be independent that’s what they’ll do because that’s what they truly want.
It is conspiracy theory-level thinking, but look at EndeavorWMEdani’s summary of how a ND site responded.
“-Not very comforting for maintaining independence IMO.”
Plenty of online response has been the same.
That said, I still can’t help but wonder what the breaking point is for it all. If the B10 nets $120-130mil this cycle without ND, it doesn’t feel insane to think with ND would be $140-150mil. ND right now is hoping for, what, $90mil?
Based on what’s been reported so far, the B10 is looking at roughly $77M per school (ignoring a cut for the B10 itself) from the media deals. Then add in maybe $20M per school from an expanded CFP and $2.5M per school from the NCAA tournament. All in, it’ll be near $100M.
Obviously that goes up if there is an additional deal, or the values have been underreported so far.
ND has asked for $75M from NBC, plus they get about $11M or so from the ACC currently. With the current CFP added in, about $90M would be typical. But in the expanded CFP ND may make a lot more. Some estimates put them at $30-40M per year because they never split their money with anyone – it all depends on how often they get in, and what the revenue sharing formula is.
So, hypothetically, they could be leaving potentially $60mil on the table for that independence. And, sure, it’s not all about money, ND doesn’t necessarily need the money, etc. But it’s also at best purchasing quasi independence.
More likely, they are leaving very little on the table. They’ve been $10-20M behind for a long time and haven’t worried about it. And as Frank points out, chasing the conference money risks losing donations that exceed the athletic revenue gap.
They’re already in a conference for every sport aside from football.
They don’t care about that, they just want decent opponents and a fair shot at a national title.
Their ACC football agreement is five games a year, plus they have to schedule a west coast team (USC, Stanford) to maintain exposure out there. So there’s five slots taken and one region locked every year right off the bat.
They get eastern and western exposure through those games, two things very important to them (for recruiting, for future students, for alumni). They also get bowl access for their down years. And those 5 ACC games are the cost of helping their other sports – for just CFB they’d prefer fewer ACC games.
A B10 schedule is nine games, plus the B10 can now guarantee at least one of those is a west coast game every year in USC (and maybe Stanford or even UCLA). So that $60mil (hypothetical) opportunity cost buys them… three game slots a year?
ND thinks of itself more as an eastern school that happens to be in IN. It already gets 7 games in the midwest, so it isn’t looking for more midwest exposure. The B10 could get them some east and west coast exposure, but not the southeast they get from the ACC. And they’d have 2 fewer games to chase exposure elsewhere and just tailor their schedule to their desires. ND has said FL access is important to them.
They’d be paying almost $20mil/game just to pick a few more non-B10 teams.
The biggest thing they get is the mystique of being the lone major independent. Without that, they’d just be UM or UNC or UT.
I guess, for me, I get that independence is the ND identity. But it feels like they already sold out that identity in 2013 so why not finish the job.
Because they don’t feel they’ve sold it out.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
For me it’s just looking at the numbers and not understanding the math, because they haven’t been truly independent in a while now. Having the flexibility to schedule seven games (well, six if they insist on one being USC, five if Stanford needs to be there as well) instead of three isn’t independence, it’s the same leash with more slack.
From the ND point of view they still need to play Navy every year. That would make 10 locked games. If they also find Stanford important (as in UCLA isn’t a reasonable replacement), that would be 11 games out of 12 locked. That’s pretty restrictive.
In their current setup they have 5 ACC + USC + Stanford + Navy locked, so just 8 games. That’s a big difference.
LikeLike
Colin,
Swarbrick sounds delighted so my hunch is that the Big Ten got hosed on the NBC deal, but I guess we’ll wait to see the details when announced.
He is delighted, and he explained why. It has nothing to do with the B10 getting screwed, it’s about weakening ESPN’s dominance and strengthening NBC’s place in CFB. Both of those things help the B10 too.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/10/notre-dame-ad-jack-swarbrick-weighs-in-on-big-tens-deal-with-nbc
“I think it’s great,” Swarbrick said, via Blue and Gold’s Ashton Pollard. “The more major broadcasters we keep involved in college football, the better it is for everybody because they’re invested, they want to promote the game, they want additional properties. I think it was a brilliant strategy by commissioner [Kevin] Warren. I think it played out marvelously for them. The timing could not have been better, and I think when they finally announce the number, it will be a pretty amazing one.“
“But it’s also perfect for Notre Dame. We need NBC to have more college football to more effectively promote our games, to talk about our games and to have NBC be seen in that light. So that was great for us that they got a big piece of this.”
As for getting hosed, CBS supposedly paid the same or a little less than NBC for a similar package. Did ND somehow manipulate CBS into hosing the B10 as well?
LikeLike
Right – I’m not understanding how this is a zero-sum game between the Big Ten or Notre Dame at all. I get that many fans have strong feelings about ND, but it can blind them that they’re a huge money-maker for the whole system and, as long as that’s the case, leagues like the Big Ten will be happy to work with them. It’s exponentially better for the Big Ten for ND to maintain independence than it is for ND to go to the ACC or any other non-Big Ten league, so the B1G isn’t going to push them.
LikeLike
Brian: “Did ND somehow manipulate CBS into hosing the B10 as well?”
Brian, why don’t we wait until we see the numbers? How much will ND receive per broadcast, and how much will the Big Ten receive per broadcast?
LikeLike
Colin,
That’s not what I’m talking about. If NBC airs a doubleheader with ND vs Marshall and Michigan State vs Wisconsin, how much does ND get paid and how much does the Big Ten get?
Apples and oranges. But if rumored values are true: ND ~ $10.7M, B10 ~ $25-27M
Bear in mind that NBC didn’t have any viable options for ‘shoulder programming’
Says who? The P12 is up for grabs, and the B12 will be soon.
whereas we know that that ESPN was willing to pay essentialy the same for a piece of the Big Ten.
We do? We know ESPN rejected $380M for a game per week sort of package (needed an exclusive night window, which they didn’t have), but ESPN said the value wasn’t there. We don’t know what they would have paid and what windows they could have offered.
NBC offered an exclusive window which ESPN couldn’t. NBC won’t make the B10 play second fiddle to the SEC like ESPN has to now. And NBC offered similar or more money than CBS for a similar package, suggesting the price was market value. What is your problem with it? The reporting said the B10 was looking to get away from ESPN, so it got what it wanted.
LikeLike
Colin: “If NBC airs a doubleheader with ND vs Marshall and Michigan State vs Wisconsin, how much does ND get paid and how much does the Big Ten get?”
Brian: “But if rumored values are true: ND ~ $10.7M, B10 ~ $25-27M”
As I said, let’s see when we learn the numbers.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Brian, the Tallahassee airport is short drive from the campus. The closest major airport to Tallahassee is Jacksonville, which is about a 2 1/2 hour drive.
The problem is that the capital of Florida has a tiny airport with very few direct flights to anywhere except major airports. There are at least some direct flights between TLH and Chicago.
Swarbrick said it, so I assume he knows what he’s talking about. I have no idea how they get to FSU. Maybe based on when the flights leave, the flights to/from Tallahassee aren’t useful to them? He may especially be thinking about a weeknight game when they want to fly home afterwards.
LikeLike
little8: “Maybe Notre Dame just does not want anyone telling them they have to play on Friday nights.”
Hope they’ve got that written into their ACC contract then. It’s not like the B10 is the only conference playing on days other than Saturday, now or in the future.
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-football-what-know-about-2021-schedule
LikeLike
Colin,
Brian, why don’t we wait until we see the numbers?
Why? Exact numbers won’t change the point . You waved away the numbers based on reporting, which show the B10 getting 2.3-2.5x more per game. How far off can those be? Both numbers would have to be off by 50% for ND to even get the same amount per game as the B10.
How much will ND receive per broadcast, and how much will the Big Ten receive per broadcast?
I don’t care. You do. I don’t agree it’s even a relevant comparison.
LikeLike
Brian, how many Big Ten games is NBC getting?
LikeLike
Colin,
All the reporting says a weekly primetime game, so 14. Plus some scraps for Peacock, which is why they are paying more than CBS.
LikeLike
Brian: “All the reporting says a weekly primetime game, so 14.”
How about weeks when ND does not have a home game? Just one Big Ten game on NBC?
LikeLike
Brian: “From the ND point of view they still need to play Navy every year. That would make 10 locked games. If they also find Stanford important (as in UCLA isn’t a reasonable replacement), that would be 11 games out of 12 locked. That’s pretty restrictive.”
I agree, though if the original rumors were true I feel like the Stanford problem would be “sorted out” easy enough. Which would make it 10 out of 12. It also feels like Stanford is a means to an end more than an actual rival, but maybe ND fans feel different.
And if Navy/Stanford/USC are must haves for ND regardless of their conference affiliation, that makes it 10/12 vs 8/12. That also assumes the B10 maintains nine conference games; with the SEC insisting they’re staying at eight last I heard the B10 could decide to match. Particularly if it was such a sticking point for ND. It’s still restrictive, but not necessarily so much worse, and again the question in part remains how much money left behind is worth maintaining that 1-2 extra game freedom of choice.
That said, both you and Alan have napkin math on here showing how my spitball assumptions could be way off. So it’s likely not quite as simple as I want to make it.
“Because they don’t feel they’ve sold it out.”
A lot of people don’t like to admit the truth about their choices. (I kid. Mostly.)
LikeLike
MD – I don’t think the SEC will stay at 8. The bottom half of the conference is just posturing right now.
LikeLike
Alan:
It would make sense, especially now at 16 teams. But it has also made sense for years and the SEC has to this point resisted the idea.
LikeLike
md,
I really don’t see the B10 dropping to 8 games after expanding. The whole point is to have more high-quality games. Plus members want to keep playing each other.
I also think the SEC will move to 9 games, but I think they may be delaying that as a “compromise” they make in CFP negotiations.
LikeLike
Brian: “I really don’t see the B10 dropping to 8 games after expanding. The whole point is to have more high-quality games. Plus members want to keep playing each other.”
Let me go on record first saying I don’t see it happening either. What’s the point — for either the conference or the broadcasters — if the B10 is adding big named teams that never play one another.
But to speculate, let’s say ND+Stanford were on the table today, but the final (hah) sticking point for ND is that they’re concerned about having only three OOC slots since Navy automatically takes up one of them. Does the B10 acquiesce to that concern and consider an eight game schedule once ND+Stanford joins?
That would be a huge demand, but it’s also not demanding something that would clearly outwardly benefit only ND and offend all other teams. Unlike something like keeping their NBC contract, uneven revenue, only they have eight conference games, whatever. Things that the B10’s pride (and common sense) would never agree to.
While I’d still lean towards the B10 scoffing at the idea, I have to remember that (a) it’s not necessarily set in stone until the end of time, and (b) ND is literally the only remaining non-B10/SEC school that’s considered a certified home run. No one else in any other conference comes close, there isn’t a no-brainer Plan B. And does that math change if the SEC and ACC were to come out and say they’re sticking with eight games for the foreseeable future (even if this isn’t likely to stay true).
LikeLike
manifesto: “let’s say ND+Stanford were on the table today, but the final (hah) sticking point for ND is that they’re concerned about having only three OOC slots since Navy automatically takes up one of them.”
Unless the Big Ten added Army and Navy as non-revenue affiliate members for football only.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
But to speculate, let’s say ND+Stanford were on the table today, but the final (hah) sticking point for ND is that they’re concerned about having only three OOC slots since Navy automatically takes up one of them. Does the B10 acquiesce to that concern and consider an eight game schedule once ND+Stanford joins?
No, I don’t think the B10 would drop to 8 even then. You point out that ND can move it around the country to get exposure, and that IA also has a locked OOC rival as does UCLA (probably). I don’t think 9 members would vote to drop to 8 games. It would also greatly impact the inventory and the TV networks might have something to say about it.
While I’d still lean towards the B10 scoffing at the idea, I have to remember that (a) it’s not necessarily set in stone until the end of time, and (b) ND is literally the only remaining non-B10/SEC school that’s considered a certified home run. No one else in any other conference comes close, there isn’t a no-brainer Plan B. And does that math change if the SEC and ACC were to come out and say they’re sticking with eight games for the foreseeable future (even if this isn’t likely to stay true).
It’s more likely to me that CFB will add a 13th game than that the B10 will drop to 8 games.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/08/09/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten-TV-rights.aspx
I haven’t seen this bit quoted yet here:
As part of the deal terms, CBS is expected to carry a football game in the 3:30pm ET window on Saturdays, and NBC would carry one in primetime. NBC’s Peacock streaming service will carry an undetermined number of games per year exclusively. Peacock also will simulcast the games that air on NBC.
…
Sources confirmed a N.Y. Post report that CBS will pay around $350M for its package. NBC also will pay $350M per year for its package, sources said.
So Peacock has some exclusive games, but it’s unclear how many, when, or what type. That undermines BTN, but presumably was required by NBC. It’s a shame to waste games like that. Peacock literally crashed right before exclusively streaming the ND/Toledo game last year.
Also, the deal values are still approximate. It could be $350M each from CBS and NBC, or maybe NBC is paying more to stream (would make some sense) as others have reported. We’ll know soon enough.
LikeLike
Fans of Rutgers, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, etc., will enjoy their “missing games” on Peacock. Of course if you want the school to get $100 million plus per year and deal with lots of sports and financial issues, that is the trade-off. Personally, I think that is a fine trade off for those schools.
I do wonder if Peacock streaming will adversely impact BTN. Of course, since Fox was in the negotiations, I assume that is not a problem.
LikeLike
Bernie,
It really depends how many games each package includes.
B14 = 63 conf. games + 35 OOC game = 98 games
B16 = 72 conf. games + 40 OOC game = 112 games
Those 14 extra games have to go somewhere.
Old deal:
Fox/FS1 = 27 games
ESPN family = 27 games
BTN = 44 games
New deal:
Fox/FS1 = ? games
ESPN family = 0 games
CBS = 13-14 games
NBC = 13-14 games
Peacock = ? games
BTN = ? games
If Fox keep the same number of games as now, Peacock could take the 14 extra games from expansion and leave BTN with its usual inventory.
LikeLike
Brian, I personally have no problem with any of it, including the amount of BTN inventory. Just musing.
More than one or two B1G schools have athletic departments in real financial trouble, including at least UCLA, Rutgers, Maryland and perhaps others. Of course, none of them have been getting anything close to B1G shares in the last few years.
I presume that all three of them, and which ever other teams, will get financially healthy in a few years when they are each getting something like $80 million per year or more on the way to $100 million +.
I have the RU numbers. In COVID 2020, the standard B1G team distribution was a bit more than $53 million and in 2021 it went up about another million. The RU distributions were $29 million and $44 million. In 2019, UCLA got $32 million and that dropped to $20 million in 2021. UCLA’s first B1G payday will probably be fifty percent more they got in 2019 and 2021 combined.
I do not have UMd numbers.
To double or more the $40 million is well worth being on Peacock and virtually invisible for a few games a year for RU and UMd.
That will not happen to UCLA, since the B1G will want them in prime time, at least a couple of times.
LikeLike
Bernie,
You never know. BTN rules required everyone to appear at least twice per year, and at least once in a B10 game. Peacock may get at least 1 appearance per team. A lot of those would probably be crappy OOC games that often go on the BTN overflow channels, but everyone may lose a game to the black hole of Peacock.
LikeLike
According to the Athletic, Apple, crouched in the weeds, has come in with a last minute bid, much to Amazon’s chagrin no doubt. I would love to see this end on a 1.5B high note. We’ll have to wait and see.
LikeLike
They’re really starting to spread things thinly if they do this on top of the other rumored deals. Presumably BTN is the big loser of content with Peacock and then Amazon/Apple getting exclusive games. At some point, BTN will lose it’s value and the subscription price will drop and subscribers will drop even faster. Why destroy your own asset this way?
LikeLike
Well, for one, the value of that asset is slowly dropping.
We really need to wait to see the details of the deals, though.
LikeLike
Brian: “They’re really starting to spread things thinly if they do this on top of the other rumored deals. . . . At some point, BTN will lose it’s value and the subscription price will drop and subscribers will drop even faster.
I really don’t think we’re close to that point. Football programming may be getting diluted a bit but we pick up more basketball games, notably UCLA, there are always a lot of Men’s BB games. And hey – how about some beach volleyball?
Then there is hockey and women’s hoops too. Still lots of quality live programming.
LikeLike
Colin,
It really depends on the packages for each of these networks.
Suppose 1 game per week for everyone:
Fox – 13 games
CBS – 13 games
NBC – 13 games
FS1 – 13 games
Peacock – 13 games
Amazon/Apple – 13 games
That would be 78 of 112 games, leaving just 34 games. That would be BTN losing 10 of 44 games (23%), and CFB is 80% of the total value. Some of those will be games currently on BTN overflow channels, but not all of them. If those other 6 networks all get better games (and they would all want at least some decent games), BTN will have the dregs.
Nobody knows what is happening with the MBB now. CBS currently has 13 MBB games I think, and Fox and FS1 have some as well. ESPN carried about twice as many of them. Do CBS and Fox want more? Does FS1? Do NBC/Peacock or Amazon/Apple want some? Will FS2 get games?
And if more MBB games end up on BTN, that doesn’t help during fall and is much less likely to keep subscribers. It’s bad for all the other winter sports, too.
LikeLike
So when will FS1 air a B1G game if FOX (noon), CBS (3:30p) & NBC (7p) are exclusive?
Or do we assume that “exclusive” only pertains to OTA networks? If so, I would assume noon against FOX. I wouldn’t think CBS or NBC would want B1G #4 going against either B1G #2 or #3.
LikeLike
Since the reports are that CBS and NBC paid about the same why do you believe that Peacock got 13 exclusive games (vs simulcast with NBC) and they are better than BTN? Apple/Amazon will demand good content but based on what has been reported for cost, it looks like Peacock paid for 8 games) with lots of dregs during the first few weeks of the season when most of the buy games occur.
LikeLike
Alan,
I believe exclusive has been used 2 different ways in describing this. First, there will be OTA exclusivity for B10 games. That just makes sense that the 3 networks wouldn’t undercut each other. ABC/ESPN will already be offering significant competition to all 3 OTA games, so FS1 games shouldn’t be an issue. FS1 games running at noon would make sense as the B10 is used to a lot of noon games. Or maybe they run against the #1 and 2 games, but not the #3 pick.
Second, the B10 wanted exclusive windows from the networks, not split coverage (so Fox only showing the B10 at noon, not a mix of B10 and B12 games, for example). The partial exception may be NBC with ND, we’ll have to see how that works out going forward. Certainly ND/B10 games would be fine (USC, plus any others). But what if the ACC schedules Clemson @ ND? Will that be a primetime game? We don’t know yet.
The other open question is what happens on CBS in 2023. The SEC deal doesn’t move to ESPN until 2024 unless ESPN buys out the last year from CBS. If the SEC is still on at 3:30, does CBS show some B10 games at other times? How much do they pay that year?
The details are everything in complex deals like this.
LikeLike
Brian, the BTN has never been about having quality content. It has been about getting revenue from games that were previously of zero value, e.g. Indiana-Miami OH and Purdue-Bowling Green. That isn’t going to change.
Adding the two LA schools obviously increases both – more quality of content and more quantity of content. There will continue to be plentity of programming for the BTN.
LikeLike
Little8,
“Since the reports are that CBS and NBC paid about the same why do you believe that Peacock got 13 exclusive games (vs simulcast with NBC) and they are better than BTN?”
Reports on their costs have varied a bit. SBJ reported that Peacock does get some exclusive games in addition to simulcasting the NBC games. The number of Peacock games and their quality are unknown. I just threw out a number to do analysis – I have no reporting to say that number is right. It could be fewer games, like 3-5 I suppose, but that doesn’t seem like enough to achieve Comcast’s goals. As for quality, again why would Comcast bother paying to get the worst games on the list? They got ND/Toledo last year. I don’t think RU/Holy Cross would do anything for selling Peacock subscriptions. But all the guesswork is why I opened with a disclaimer that it really depends on what the packages actually are.
“Apple/Amazon will demand good content but based on what has been reported for cost, it looks like Peacock paid for 8 games) with lots of dregs during the first few weeks of the season when most of the buy games occur.”
We have a limited idea of what NBC actually will pay. The B10 made it clear that none of the deals were finalized yet. SBJ said about $350M each for CBS and NBC, then the Athletic said $380M for NBC. But what if NBC only wanted 10 games (leaving 3 ND primetime games) + Peacock games and people just hadn’t reported that yet? Then how many Peacock games might that be?
It’s all speculation for now. I just wanted to show what the numbers could look like, and why I said they might be spreading things thinly if they added another streamer on top of everything.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Brian, the BTN has never been about having quality content.”
Yes and no. Much of it’s business plan is based on every B10 CFB team having to appear on it at least twice per year (at least 1 a B10 game) so everyone needs a subscription. The rule forces a certain level of quality for BTN. Remove OSU and MI and PSU football games and see how many subscribers it loses and how much lower the subscription price goes.
Like all cable networks, BTN is already slowly losing subscribers. Take away some content or lower its quality, and that process will just accelerate.
“It has been about getting revenue from games that were previously of zero value, e.g. Indiana-Miami OH and Purdue-Bowling Green. That isn’t going to change.”
That’s a bonus, but it’s really about general B10 exposure and other sports more than any value from those games. They just don’t add much revenue.
“There will continue to be plentity of programming for the BTN.”
Maybe. Probably. (depends on what “plenty” means)
But we don’t know any of the numbers yet. That’s the point. The B10 could have more and better inventory, but BTN could get fewer and/or lower value games because of all the other packages. I’m not predicting anything, just saying we don’t know what will happen. Especially if the B10 keeps selling more packages to other networks.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m not sure why you’d think there’s even the possibility of some exception for ND if you don’t entertain the idea of exceptions for the B12, etc.
Pretty certain that the B10 wants to brand each of their windows on a network. I’m pretty certain we won’t see an ND-ACC matchup on “Big Ten Primetime on NBC”
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/fox/six-questions-espn-big-ten-split.html
B1G basketball discussion.
Will ESPN get access to SEC rights a year early? CBS has two more seasons (2022 and 2023) left on their sweetheart deal with the SEC (the prized 3:30 pm ET game of the week) before it goes to ABC/ESPN in 2024. This new Big Ten deal would start in 2023, which means CBS is essentially double-booked in that 3:30 slot. So, what happens here?
Does this increase the chances of Notre Dame of joining the Big Ten?
Does this make further realignment more or less likely?
Will a streaming company get a slice of a new Big Ten deal?
What does this mean for an expanded College Football Playoff?
Where does this leave the Pac-12 and the Big 12?
LikeLike
On MBB:
But with ESPN seemingly out of the picture, where will all those men’s games go, and would potential lack of shelf space force the other winter sports off of television?
FS1 and BTN would love to take on more basketball during the week, and you’d probably see Fox air more college basketball during the weekend, especially after football season ends. But given their current commitments to the Pac 12, Mountain West, and Big East, there’s just very little room to take on the tonnage that ESPN will be losing.
Two non-obvious options you could see here would be:
ESPN actually may actually try to keep a basketball-only package (possible, although the addition of the NHL lessens their dependence here).
With ESPN’s inventory moving over and the addition of USC and UCLA (and perhaps more), you could maybe even see Fox launch a BTN2 or BTN overflow channel.
The more obvious answers would be:
NBC-owned USA, with its significant cable distribution, becomes a major hub of Big Ten basketball and potentially other winter sports.
Less attractive options (because of less distribution and reach) like CBSSN, and streaming options like Peacock and Paramount+.
Some Big Ten basketball and other sports find themselves on a streaming platform like AppleTV+ or Amazon Prime as part of a smaller TBD announced streaming package that would most likely center around Friday night football.
LikeLike
P12 vs B12 TV ratings data from someone at SBJ. I don’t know where he got them or how he generated them.
LikeLike
An interesting bullet -point take away of Swarbrick:s interview from the editor of a large ND forum/site. I didn’t listen to it, these are their impressions, not mine.
-Swarbrick complains about non-rev travel
-Excited about the new Big 10 contract
-More shifting of teams.
-Not very comforting for maintaining independence IMO.
-Lavished praise on Kevin Warren and Big Ten for type of structure they have built in distributing their content.
*Discussed how he doesn’t believe a 3rd super conference could be built from ACC, Big 12 & PAC.
LikeLike
Everybody is reading a lot into his comments about independence. I don’t think he really said anything new – he mentioned the same 3 key things that could force ND to join a conference that he’s mentioned before. But he also didn’t say ND would stay independent forever, and I know some ND fans want to hear that.
LikeLike
https://nypost.com/podcasts/marchand-ourand-sports-media/
The Marchand and Ourand podcast spent their first almost 30 minutes on the B10 media deals.
LikeLike
Frank posted his takeaways from the podcast elsewhere on the internet, but I don’t see them here yet so I’ll just copy and paste his notes and give my 2 cents later.
By the way, be sure to listen to the podcast from John Ourand and Andrew Marchand (the top sports business/media rights reporters) that’s out today with a ton of discussion on the Big Ten TV rights:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep…0575630800
A few key takeaways from me:
(1) FOX actually is in a good relationship with ESPN and isn’t fighting with them at all. (The podcast doesn’t mention this, but it makes sense when Disney’s top individual stockholders include a bunch of Murdoch family members that simultaneously control FOX.) If anything, FOX would have preferred ESPN to keep the Big Ten as opposed to letting CBS and NBC get stronger positions in college football. Instead, the animosity seemed to come from inside the Big Ten where the league perceived ESPN to be the SEC’s network and the B1G didn’t want to be second banana anywhere.
(2) The approaches of the SEC/Greg Sankey and Big Ten/Kevin Warren towards their TV rights are very different. Ourand made it clear that CBS didn’t get outbid by ESPN for the SEC Game of the Week package, but rather the SEC was very intent on getting everything under the ESPN umbrella and would have passed over CBS even if they had a higher bid than ESPN. The SEC wanted one partner and total flexibility to move around game times with such partner.
The Big Ten had effectively the complete opposite approach and it was very intentional from Kevin Warren’s experience in the NFL: they wanted multiple networks and each of them granting guaranteed time slot real estate to have a full multi-network schedule on Saturday in the same way the the NFL has a full multi-schedule network on Sunday. Warren is looking at the expanded CFP expansion in the same way: he thinks the way to maximize revenue is to ensure that multiple networks get playoff games just like the NFL (and I believe that he’s correct on that front).
(3) NBC was the latecomer here. They didn’t seem to be serious bidders in the beginning, but really came on hard in the last few weeks since the USC/UCLA expansion. (My personal guess is that the Comcast earnings report from a couple of weeks ago showing that Peacock subscriptions stalled and their stock got hammered as a result sealed the deal where NBC felt that they *had* to get Big Ten rights onto Peacock to spur growth again and they were willing to pay whatever price was necessary.)
(4) Amazon put in what both Ourand and Marchand had heard was a really aggressive bid. The question is whether that was really high enough for the Big Ten to seriously contemplate putting higher level games with exclusive streaming on Amazon considering that the league was prioritizing OTA network exposure. Essentially, Amazon couldn’t just merely outbid everyone else (which is might have been what actually happened), but rather truly blow everyone else away. They noted that Amazon actually bid the most money for the Formula One rights earlier this year, but F1 still went with ESPN because of exposure concerns.
Really interesting stuff here and if there are any true authorities on sports media rights deals, it’s these two guys.
LikeLike
The anti-ESPN feeling coming from the B10 (not Fox) was interesting. It does put a bit of a hole in those ESPN vs Fox conspiracy theories. And so fans don’t misunderstand, it wasn’t the strong hate many fans have for ESPN. The B10 felt there just wasn’t room for the B10 to be treated as the SEC’s equal at ESPN and they wouldn’t accept secondary status when they can be primary everywhere else.
The B10 chose OTA exposure on NBC over more money from Amazon, basically. I’m curious how Peacock fits in, as it goes against the strategy of maximizing exposure.
Basically, the B10 made the same decision as other major sports have. It’s just not time (yet) to move key properties to exclusive streaming. The streamers can afford to pay a lot more, but getting viewers is too important. Maybe people will wait to see how the Amazon NFL does, because if they can’t drive ratings on streaming then nobody can in the US. CFB would be much less effective at driving subscriptions.
LikeLike
Do we know that the B10 rejected Amazon?
Though as Amazon is willing to blow everyone else out of the water, that’s a way to fund expansion, if they’re willing to pay 2nd/3rd choice money for 4th choice rights. And extra $350mm/year is enough to fund the addition of 4 more schools (some of Stanford/Cal/UW/UNC/Duke/UVa/GTech/Miami; ND and FSU fund themselves).
8-9 more if that money for 4th and 5th pick.
I suppose we’ll find out what happens in a decade when the ACC falls apart.
LikeLike
I view the pending BiG media rights deal as an attempt to preserve the dying cable/satellite/live streaming ecosystem for as long as possible. By spreading the games around, one is forced to buy a bundled pay TV package to watch. I think the consequence will be that fewer younger people will end up being fervent sports fans than in previous generations.
As the prices of these bundled pay-TV packages (the broadcast networks sell “retransmission” rights to this ecosystem for ever-increasing amounts) continue to rise, more and more younger people are balking at subscribing. For whatever reason, Gen-Xers and older seem endlessly willing to fork over the dough.
So, the model can survive for a while. . . but not indefinitely – unless one thinks that people will adjust by, for example, only subscribing to YouTube TV during the Fall, and then again in March to watch March Madness. I suppose that would justify the broadcast networks’ largesse, but the current pay-TV ecosystem will be in a permanent state of decay.
LikeLike
The bills for bundled “video” are still fairly reasonable all things considered. It’s really the internet costs and DVR services etc the drive up the total bill. The later, when combined, might be $80-100 with 400mbs or more. The younger generation will chose the internet over the video any day. Plus throw on the cell phone costs with data and monthly expenses have exploded. People are forced to choose. My cable bill when I was out of college was maybe $30-40. Then there was a land line bill for about the same.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
I view the pending BiG media rights deal as an attempt to preserve the dying cable/satellite/live streaming ecosystem for as long as possible.
An attempt by whom? The media companies, or the B10? The companies have to do what works for their business model, don’t they? The B10’s only other choice is to try to go all-in with one company (like the SEC with ESPN), but Fox didn’t even make that offer.
What other option is there to that ecosystem you listed? Asynchronous streaming? Not showing games? That would have essentially no value.
By spreading the games around, one is forced to buy a bundled pay TV package to watch.
The OTA networks are free with a cheap antenna. This deal makes more B10 games available for free than has been true for 30 years.
I think the consequence will be that fewer younger people will end up being fervent sports fans than in previous generations.
That was likely to happen regardless. As with all other things, sports interest will be splintered with the rise of soccer and international sports (F1, cricket, …).
As the prices of these bundled pay-TV packages (the broadcast networks sell “retransmission” rights to this ecosystem for ever-increasing amounts) continue to rise, more and more younger people are balking at subscribing.
The networks are providing a valuable service. Why shouldn’t they charge for it? If people don’t want to pay, then don’t pay. Younger people pay just as much if not more for piecemeal streaming subscriptions, all of which are also rapidly increasing in price. It’s like media companies know how to gouge customers.
For whatever reason, Gen-Xers and older seem endlessly willing to fork over the dough.
Because they have it, and it makes their lives easier to get everything in one place.
So, the model can survive for a while. . . but not indefinitely – unless one thinks that people will adjust by, for example, only subscribing to YouTube TV during the Fall, and then again in March to watch March Madness.
All the subscription-based services know that people quit and rejoin. Maybe they’ll start moving to contracts for a discount like cable did, or maybe they’ll just accept the churn as part of the business. Streaming is still immature – a lot of consolidation is likely to come until it’s much like the cable industry.
I suppose that would justify the broadcast networks’ largesse, but the current pay-TV ecosystem will be in a permanent state of decay.
There’s no largesse. They make a profit as is. This permanent decay is just another phase change. Some thing (news, sports) only carry value live, and those things will gain in value as other forms of live viewing decline. Movies and shows can be viewed any time, and that seems to be the trend. But they’re still making a lot of money from the viewers because no matter what, they are providing a valuable service.
Your brilliant alternative model that apparently none of the media companies have thought of yet is what, exactly?
LikeLike
Kevin, I am not sure where you live, but in Seattle I can get a gig for $65/mo. and 100 mbps for $49/mo “for life” – no promotional rates followed by a massive price hike.
Brian, I love your factless assertions:
First, antennas don’t work in many places, including where I live. And the networks sue every other “cheap transmission” attempt out of business (Locast, Aereo).
Second, what evidence supports your claim that more than a few, let alone “younger people”, pay more for a collection of streaming services than they do for the incumbent pay-TV bundles. Logic dictates that most don’t.
The alternative model could be that Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet take live sports directly to consumers, and perhaps news too, generating revenue from multiple streams beyond today’s broadcast advertising model (e.g. – Prime mebership), thereby driving the networks into oblivion.
LikeLike
First, antennas don’t work in many places, including where I live. And the networks sue every other “cheap transmission” attempt out of business (Locast, Aereo).
Sadly I’m in the same boat I can’t get all the stations in the city where I live.
LikeLike
It is unfortunate for those of you who would use antennas, but for whom that is not possible. I may be wrong, but I thought that most people can still watch with an antenna. Certainly antennas work in virtually any major metro area. I have not looked for statistics on this, if they exist.
Notwithstanding that, exposure on major TV networks has to be much cheaper for the viewer than any cable package which includes ESPN, etc.
If antennas do not work, many cable companies offer basic packages, with all of the broadcast channels, for under $50 per month, and several have limited packages at close to $25 per month. There is simply no way to get ESPN, much less ESPN+ or ESPNU, etc., and other channels for a price competitive with basic TV.
If one wishes to get no channels other than ESPN packages, that can be done inexpensively on a computer. How common would it be for someone to just get ESPN and nothing else? It could be done, but?
LikeLike
OTA is not what it used to be. Excluding duplicate, religion, and home shopping I still get over 50 channels with the antenna. Most NFL is OTA, including MNF and TNF if a local team is involved. There is also decent OTA coverage of college football (but not the selection on cable) until the bowl / playoffs when everything is on ESPN. No dedicated sports channels are OTA.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
Kevin, I am not sure where you live, but in Seattle I can get a gig for $65/mo. and 100 mbps for $49/mo “for life” – no promotional rates followed by a massive price hike.
“First, antennas don’t work in many places, including where I live.”
Yep, though better antennas often will work. Boo fricking hoo. They are giving their product away for free and you’re complaining about it.
“And the networks sue every other “cheap transmission” attempt out of business (Locast, Aereo).”
Yes, because they are stealing their IP. Why should anyone else get to make money from their broadcasts? This flashes back to the days of Napster, complaining they couldn’t steal music and profit from it. There was long-standing law that you can’t retransmit their broadcasts – they had copyright law changed when cable companies tried the same thing 50 years ago.
“Second, what evidence supports your claim that more than a few, let alone “younger people”, pay more for a collection of streaming services than they do for the incumbent pay-TV bundles.”
46% of people pay over $50/mo for streaming, and 28% pay over $75/mo for streaming. That’s not counting the 11% that don’t even know how much they spend. And of course, that doesn’t include the internet or data price itself. It’s your own argument that younger people are the ones moving to streaming, so they must make up part of this group.
“The alternative model could be that Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet take live sports directly to consumers, and perhaps news too, generating revenue from multiple streams beyond today’s broadcast advertising model (e.g. – Prime mebership), thereby driving the networks into oblivion.”
But you complained about live streaming as part of the ecosystem. How is it better if someone else does it instead? They will still bill you for it, and find ways to extract just as much money from you as the current companies. Amazon doesn’t stream video out of the goodness of its heart, it just adds it to a bundle of ways it is profiting from you. And if the networks go away, then what? Something else has to take their place. They will just be owned by the tech firms instead. It’s a distinction without a difference.
LikeLike
Bernie,
It is unfortunate for those of you who would use antennas, but for whom that is not possible. I may be wrong, but I thought that most people can still watch with an antenna. Certainly antennas work in virtually any major metro area. I have not looked for statistics on this, if they exist.
To be clear, I agree this is unfortunate. Rural populations have dealt with this since OTA stations began and didn’t tend to get much sympathy until cable/satellite finally gave them options. And streaming often isn’t an option for them either do to internet speeds/cost available to them.
Notwithstanding that, exposure on major TV networks has to be much cheaper for the viewer than any cable package which includes ESPN, etc.
Exactly. On average, this is great for B10 fans. Even more so for fans of the bigger brands that won’t get put on BTN/Peacock/Amazon/Apple as much.
LikeLike
It is quite myopic to say that broadcast TV is “free”. You pay for it by being forced to endure advertising breaks. Back in the 1970s, NFL games ended within 2.5 hours – if not 2.25. Now the time slots allow for 3.25 hour games. The difference is almost entirely due to additional advertising. At least the NFL has worked to mitigate game length, unlike baseball.
Moreover, if you understand the history of broadcast TV, you know that the government allocated spectrum to the networks in exchange for not charging consumers directly for the service. It was only with the passage of the Telecomunications Act in the mid-1990s that broadcasters gained the right to charge retransmission fees to 3rd-party distributors (such as cable and satellite) to carry their channels, thereby adding a 2nd revenue stream – as they still got paid for the ads. Since then, the broadcast TV industry has effectively been “double-dipping” on free spectrum. Shamefully, this practice has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Then, the networks had the gall to try to prevent the wireless carriers from getting access to unused spectrum.
All that said, you raise a good point about the alarming trend in streaming to both charge a subscription fee AND force people to endure ads. Even Netflix has now caved and Amazon put a recent popular original series (Bosch) on its new “Freevee” service.
But the beauty of Amazon, is that for $139/year I can now get free 1-2 day shipping of stuff I buy on their website, and 5% discounts on everything I buy at Whole Foods. Between those two things, alone, the membership fee generally pays for itself and I get to watch Prime Video for free – generally with zero ads. And there are many other ways one can make the Prime membership pay for itself – not just these two.
It is not clear to me how Apple and Alphabet can lower the price of content access within their business models, but the fact that Apple is increasing its commitment to the space suggests to me that at least they may have figured it out to a certain extent. One advantage that Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet have over the broadcasters is that they are multinational, and thus can potentially amortize costs over a bigger customer base. The multinational part may not be relevant for college sports, but it certainly is for the NFL, NBA, and NHL.
LikeLike
NBA and NHL are recognized as the best leagues in their sports which are played worldwide. The NFL can claim this also but outside the US almost all nations use round balls for football so international opportunity does not translate as well.
LikeLike
Little8,
You can even get some small sports channels OTA. Stadium is available OTA, and BeIN is OTA in a few major markets.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
It is quite myopic to say that broadcast TV is “free”. You pay for it by being forced to endure advertising breaks. Back in the 1970s, NFL games ended within 2.5 hours – if not 2.25. Now the time slots allow for 3.25 hour games. The difference is almost entirely due to additional advertising. At least the NFL has worked to mitigate game length, unlike baseball.
I’m all for eliminating TV timeouts and everyone getting paid a lot less for their media rights, though I doubt the schools would agree. But since those breaks are there in-person, on cable, or OTA, it makes it free to me. It’s a cost I can’t avoid at this point.
All that said, you raise a good point about the alarming trend in streaming to both charge a subscription fee AND force people to endure ads. Even Netflix has now caved and Amazon put a recent popular original series (Bosch) on its new “Freevee” service.
Those fees are going up fast, allowing companies to sneak in the ads for the same price as before or pay the new higher fee. It is inevitable.
But the beauty of Amazon, is that for $139/year I can now get free 1-2 day shipping of stuff I buy on their website, and 5% discounts on everything I buy at Whole Foods. Between those two things, alone, the membership fee generally pays for itself and I get to watch Prime Video for free – generally with zero ads. And there are many other ways one can make the Prime membership pay for itself – not just these two.
If you can afford Amazon Prime, and if you can afford to buy a lot from them, and if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods, then maybe that works fine. Not everyone is in that situation. Plus, if things you want to watch are also on a bunch of other streamers, you need to subscribe to them as well. Roughly half of American households subscribe to 4 or more streaming services. Add those costs plus the underlying internet and data plans, and it is hardly a cheap option.
It is not clear to me how Apple and Alphabet can lower the price of content access within their business models, but the fact that Apple is increasing its commitment to the space suggests to me that at least they may have figured it out to a certain extent.
Ads for Apple products and services? Watch 1000 hours of Apple TV (with some interactive ad component) and get a free iPad?
One advantage that Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet have over the broadcasters is that they are multinational, and thus can potentially amortize costs over a bigger customer base. The multinational part may not be relevant for college sports, but it certainly is for the NFL, NBA, and NHL.
Streaming has greater penetration in the US than the rest of the world. It’s going to be a long time before they can make a lot from streaming in China or India.
LikeLike
That is what DVRs are for. Program the game. Start watching about an hour after kickoff, skip over the commercials and you can catch up to live in the 4th quarter. I find the TV timeouts when attending in person much more annoying than the commercials.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/podcast/97-the-audible-with-bruce-and-stew/?episode=400
John Ourand was on Stewart Mandel and Bruce Feldman’s podcast to discuss the B10 media deals.
LikeLike
I listened to it. Biggest takeaway was the structure in place for adding schools (or losing schools) after the initial contract is signed. He basically says that there is a mathematical formula that is agreed on at the beginning of a contract. They simply crunch out the numbers and re-compute the contract.
Kinda weird to me…because how would they “compute” Notre Dame vs. Kansas vs. Oregon if the Big Ten added one team. Seems like a trillion factors in that computation.
Also, the takeaway is that…teams can be added two days after the deal is penned. Two years after. Six years after…
LikeLike
Your last paragraph is fascinating, assuming Ourand has accurate info.
Two days will certainly stop speculation about further immediate expansion. If the B1G wanted anyone other than ND now, the offer would out before signing, not in the next couple of days after signing.
I would expect that ND will know the key details before signing. Also this would mean that ND either needs to get its deal prior to the B1G contracts, or no ND this year. Of course, I think that there is virtually zero chance of ND this year anyway.
I do not know what happens in two years, other than perhaps the Big 12 contract coming up for renewal.
Will this mean that Oregon and Washington will not sign a PAC GOR for more than 2 years? Certainly they will not go beyond six years.
LikeLike
Ryan: “Kinda weird to me…because how would they “compute” Notre Dame vs. Kansas vs. Oregon if the Big Ten added one team. Seems like a trillion factors in that computation.”
Someone had a lot of time in Excel.
Would be interesting to know if they’ve had a little sit down with ND and showed them that formula.
LikeLike
Ryan,
I listened to it. Biggest takeaway was the structure in place for adding schools (or losing schools) after the initial contract is signed. He basically says that there is a mathematical formula that is agreed on at the beginning of a contract. They simply crunch out the numbers and re-compute the contract.
Kinda weird to me…because how would they “compute” Notre Dame vs. Kansas vs. Oregon if the Big Ten added one team. Seems like a trillion factors in that computation.
I think it’s probably along the lines of:
1. We’ll add a pro rata times 1XX% bump for any of the following schools (ND, major SEC brands)
2. We’ll add a pro rata bump for any of the following schools (lesser SEC brands, maybe some ACC brands)
3. We’ll add an X% of a pro rata bump for the following schools (P12, other ACC/SEC)
4. We won’t add anything for anyone else
The formula comes in because they have to calculate the annual escalation and then potentially adjust by percentages on top of that. There may also be some clauses about the number of appearances that need to adjust for the new size.
Also, the takeaway is that…teams can be added two days after the deal is penned. Two years after. Six years after…
That’s always true. This contract may be more prepared for future expansion than others, but both sides may have wanted that just in case. Networks may be tired of renegotiating on the fly as realignment keeps happening, and would prefer to put the language in the deal up front. I don’t think it means expansion is any more or less likely.
LikeLike
The things I currently want to know about the media deals:
1. The basic details for each network
$, # of games, game times/days, picking order/priority for games, any MBB or other sports
2. Fine print, exceptions, and special cases
* Can NBC show ND in primetime? If so, how often, against whom, and what tradeoff do they have to make for that?
* Can CBS ever get a night game? What about Fox?
* How exclusive is each window?
* What maximums and minimums exist for appearances on certain networks?
* How will the deal work with CBS in 2023 since they still have the SEC package?
* Can schools still opt out of hosting primetime games in November?
* Can schools still opt out of hosting weeknight games?
Later I’ll want to know more about scheduling:
* How will scheduling USC vs ND will work, including the ripple effect on UCLA and others?
* Will there be any special provisions for the LA schools to minimize cold weather games, to avoid back to back long road trips, etc.?
* What will be the new scheduling format in 2024 (incl. list of locked rivals if relevant)?
* When will the CCG switch to the top 2 playing each other?
LikeLike
Special provisions for LA schools to minimize cold weather.
You mean like let them play Cal/Stanford OOC in November? Hmmm, the NorCal schools would probably like that – especially Stanford when the ND game is on the road in October – assuming that the resot of the Pac would go along with this.
LikeLike
Could be many things.
The B10 and P12 could agree to a weekend when the 4 CA schools are all available for OOC play, even in early November.
Maybe they are at home/in LA the final 2 weeks every year. Or maybe they don’t play late games in the midwest in November.
I could see OOC games in early November being allowed, but normally not the last couple of weeks (USC/ND might be an exception – we’ll have to see).
LikeLike
BTN is not that different from NFL Network. NFL has reduced their emphasis on NFL Network over time and now has gone so far as to put TNF on Amazon.
Media rights are a means to an end: money and exposure.
10-15 years ago, it made sense to focus on cable sub fees/advertising revenue. But now the better path is to sell streaming rights to larger streaming platforms that re-create the content bundle by combining sports rights with tons of other things.
I don’t understand some of the responses around here to what the Big Ten is trying to do.
This is literally copying the NFL’s strategy: go for maximum OTA broadcast exposure and wring every remaining dollar out of that while also transitioning to streaming over time.
It’s way too early to give a B-level package to Amazon, especially on competitive Saturdays. Even if Amazon offered $450-500 million for a B package, I think the Big Ten would have turned that down in favor of a $350 million package from CBS/NBC.
The exposure differential is too great: Can’t be on Amazon Prime at 7:30 on Saturday going up against ABC/ESPN and NBC right now; it doesn’t make sense in 2022. NFL could do it because they have a virtual monopoly on their windows (such as TNF). NFL can probably keep 60-70% of their audience and maybe grow that up to 80-90%. (I’d assume they’re targeting 10 million viewers at first and hoping to get that as close to 15-17 million like it would be on linear TV over time).
But in 2032? Or 2042? Then it may make sense.
The proposed package makes sense but as Brian always says, we need to see the details.
LikeLike
z33k,
“BTN is not that different from NFL Network. NFL has reduced their emphasis on NFL Network over time and now has gone so far as to put TNF on Amazon.”
I disagree, because the B10 is very different from the NFL. The B10 has 24+ sports and 14 members it wants to promote to various extents. No other outlet is incentivized to promote the non-revenue sports or the schools. As within the sports programs, the revenue sports provide the revenue to BTN to let the other sports get some attention. If BTN went away entirely, CFB and MBB would find other homes easily. But WBB, hockey, WVB, wrestling, …? And even the brief mentions of the less popular sports would go away. And what about the other games BTN+ streams?
“Media rights are a means to an end: money and exposure.”
Agreed, but the B10 wants exposure for more than CFB and MBB. The NFL has 1 sport it is selling.
“10-15 years ago, it made sense to focus on cable sub fees/advertising revenue. But now the better path is to sell streaming rights to larger streaming platforms that re-create the content bundle by combining sports rights with tons of other things.”
I don’t necessarily agree. Maybe that is the most profitable path. Is that inherently better, even if it doesn’t achieve the other goals?
“I don’t understand some of the responses around here to what the Big Ten is trying to do.
This is literally copying the NFL’s strategy: go for maximum OTA broadcast exposure and wring every remaining dollar out of that while also transitioning to streaming over time.”
The B10 isn’t the NFL, and maximum profit isn’t necessarily goal #1. I’ve supported the OTA spread, as I generally think the broader exposure is good. I think many are pushing the streaming side too early in terms of exposure, and undermining BTN which performs services others won’t.
“It’s way too early to give a B-level package to Amazon, especially on competitive Saturdays. Even if Amazon offered $450-500 million for a B package, I think the Big Ten would have turned that down in favor of a $350 million package from CBS/NBC.
The exposure differential is too great: Can’t be on Amazon Prime at 7:30 on Saturday going up against ABC/ESPN and NBC right now; it doesn’t make sense in 2022.”
Agreed. I just think the same applies to C, D and E packages. Why trade viewers for cash at this stage?
“NFL could do it because they have a virtual monopoly on their windows (such as TNF). NFL can probably keep 60-70% of their audience and maybe grow that up to 80-90%. (I’d assume they’re targeting 10 million viewers at first and hoping to get that as close to 15-17 million like it would be on linear TV over time).”
Let’s wait and see how that works. Some will watch, but I think a big chunk won’t bother.
“But in 2032? Or 2042? Then it may make sense.”
Sure, none of these decision are permanent.
LikeLike
Not a fan of this. Every school will play one Friday night game a year…so every fan base will “technically” need a Apple Plus subscription each year. Kinda flies against the proleteriat feel of all our big games being on network TV (FOX/CBS/NBC).
LikeLike
I’m also against it, primarily because Friday night games are wrong and bad. It’s a bad night for TV, HS football is being played and should be the primary football focus, and traffic and other issues interfere. On top of that, spreading to yet another subscription provider is annoying. I certainly wouldn’t pay for that.
Have they forgotten how this went over 5-6 years ago? The schools with bigger stadiums won’t/can’t host the games, with MI and PSU refusing to play in them at all. The B10 had to backtrack and reduce the games from the original plan of 3 OOC and 3 B10 games to 2-3 total. Now you’re going to force everyone to play in these abominations? That’s pure, unadulterated greed and they deserve the inevitable backlash this decision will get.
There’s a reason the NFL is prevented from playing games on Friday or Saturday – to protect the lower levels of football. The B10 should do the same for HS football. It’s also better for fans to not have to try to get to a game in a major city or the middle of nowhere on a weeknight.
LikeLike
I’m not for it either…but not as passionately as you. High school football has different pulls on people in different areas…in general, it’s a niche just like CFB. They will never play USC at Michigan on a Friday night in October…but the Maryland at Northwestern games will be there for the homebound sports fan who would never step foot in high school bleachers. Yes, once a year you know that the big boys will play a road game on Friday night…PSU at Illinois, OSU at Rutgers, Michigan at Indiana…because that will drive subscribers to Apple Plus…but it’s not going to be the death of the Big Ten or high school football either.
LikeLike
Coaches can’t watch recruits if they have a F night game. HS players can’t watch the B10 game if they are playing at the same time. Fans without kids on the team have to choose which to watch – HS football is really big in some places.
Many B10 schools are in terrible locations for fan access on a F night. How many hours do many fans drive to get to a game? How can they do that if they need to be at work? And what is the traffic like trying to get to those games in MSP, Chicago, and Newark?
And honestly, f*** Apple and Amazon. Why should the B10 screw up its schedule to help them?
It won’t be the death of anything, but it’s an unnecessary wound. The P12 or B12 might happily play on F night for the money they have to offer. The MAC certainly would.
LikeLike
Brian, I thought you could not understand Pac fans’ issues with “after dark” games, and stated that the Big Ten fans accepted their 8pm games happily. Perhaps a little more empathy is in order.
LikeLike
B10 fans accept Saturday primetime games just fine (except in November). Weeknights are a different thing. P12 fans complain about Saturday night games, too.
LikeLike
In the SEC and Big 12 SW schools, the fan bases refused any discussion of interference with Friday Night Lights.
LikeLike
As good of a way to define the blueblood kings of CFB as anything else. And the trends are telling.
LikeLike
Washington is a bit of a surprise for me. They were hanging at the bottom of the list for quite a while; I wouldn’t have thought they would be in the top 20 as of 2021.
As a Nebraska fan living on the West Coast (SF), I’m hoping that the Big 10 ads more Pac 10 teams; I would love to see them on the West Coast, and sadly, I don’t see them going to the Rose Bowl anytime soon.
LikeLike
Xerxes,
Older fans remember the Don James era, plus the next two coaches did pretty well also through 2002. UW was #12 in W% from 1975-2002 at 0.699.
But then they had a bad decade until Chris Petersen arrived. That bad decade is more fresh in our minds but is not typical of UW. UW is #75 in W% since 2003, at 0.496 but Petersen was winning about 68% of his games. Part of it is the lack of ESPN touting of the P12. Their games were on late at night and ESPN didn’t hype them like they did the SEC and ACC. People were more aware of UW’s success before ESPN took over CFB.
LikeLike
Also of note is how Arkansas fell from a long time in the 10-12 slot to out of the top 20 after joining the SEC.
There are 20 schools who have dominated the MNCs (52/54) and top 3 (148/162) and top 5 (227/270) finishes going back to 1968. All of the top 20 above except for UCLA and Texas A&M are in that group. Oregon and Colorado are the two that aren’t in that AP poll list.
LikeLike
People forget that Arkansas was a big addition for the SEC at the time. Bigger than Georgia, LSU, Auburn or Florida.
LikeLike
bullet: “People forget that Arkansas was a big addition for the SEC at the time. Bigger than Georgia, LSU, Auburn or Florida.”
They were indeed. Those Frank Broyles’ Hogs vs Darrell Royal Horns were sometimes #1 vs #2 games.
LikeLike
In 1992, picking up Arkansas was a coup for the SEC. They were the 2nd best football team in the SWC, won a MNC in 1964, and had a great all-around athletic department run by Frank Broyles. While Arkansas has only been hit-and-miss in football since joining the SEC, they have been very good in basketball, baseball, track & cross country, FWIW.
Florida State was also supposed to join the SEC with Arkansas, until Bobby Bowden torpedoed the deal. Since FSU won the championship in 1993, he looked pretty smart at the time.
Florida State refusing to join the SEC is the #3 bone-headed realignment move of all time. #1a & 1b are GA Tech and Tulane quitting the SEC in the mid-60s.
LikeLike
Alan: “Florida State refusing to join the SEC is the #3 bone-headed realignment move of all time.”
You might also consider the newly-forming Big East Conference not inviting independent Penn State.
LikeLike
You might also consider the newly-forming Big East Conference not inviting independent Penn State.
That move forever changed Eastern football. How different things would look today if the BE invited Penn State.
LikeLike
Big East Commish Mike Tranghese publicly bemoaned the decision himself. Yet the Big East ADs were on a vendatta to screw Penn State and set up their premier basketball conference.
LikeLike
“Big East Commish Mike Tranghese publicly bemoaned the decision himself. Yet the Big East ADs were on a vendetta to screw Penn State and set up their premier basketball conference.”
Colin,
Correct me if I’m wrong but Paterno’s dream was an Eastern All Sports Conference and the BE basketball schools were afraid he would take Syracuse, Pitt, WVU etc.
LikeLike
Here is is: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2001004-how-penn-state-couldve-saved-big-east-football
LikeLike
Colin,
A. Do you think if PSU were in the BE would Miami & VA Tech still have joined?
B. If they did join would they have left for the ACC?
LikeLike
Doug: “A. Do you think if PSU were in the BE would Miami & VA Tech still have joined?
B. If they did join would they have left for the ACC?”
Not a direct answer to your question but imagine if the ACC had the insight to harvest the following, years ago, back when the ACC had only eight schools: Miami, FSU, South Carolina, VT, Penn State, West Virginia, Pitt and Syracuse.
LikeLike
Colin,
Wow! What a great move that would have been.
LikeLike
Doug – I agree, but I’m not optimistic that Penn State would have saved the Big East.
A conference including Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, BC, Rutgers, Temple, VA Tech, Cincy, Louisville, and even Miami would still be ripe for the B1G’s picking.
LikeLike
“Doug – I agree, but I’m not optimistic that Penn State would have saved the Big East.
A conference including Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, BC, Rutgers, Temple, VA Tech, Cincy, Louisville, and even Miami would still be ripe for the B1G’s picking.”
Alan,
You have a good point. It would have been much later than 1993 for PSU joining the Big. It’s possible the BE could have picked off Maryland and Virginia from the ACC by then.
The other interesting angle would be PSU had some terrific games against Pitt, WVU and Syracuse. Would they be willing to sacrifice that to join the Big 10? I honestly don’t know. The ties between those schools were pretty tight back then. As a kid I always looked forward to those 3 games.
LikeLike
Colin – agreed. Bonehead move #3a.
LikeLike
Arkansas: the Nebraska of the South.
LikeLike
Yes and South Carolina and Missouri are the SEC version of Maryland and Rutgers. However, they do not add as much for the conference network.
LikeLike
What about South Carolina withdrawing from the ACC in 1971 without a new landing spot, leaving the Gamecocks with two decades in the independent/Metro Conference wilderness? Had Florida State (the other Div I member in garnet) not rejected the SEC for the ACC, might Carolina have had to wait until the SEC grew to 14 members (no Missouri?), or applied for the Big 12 in the mid-’90s?
LikeLike
vpo819: “What about South Carolina withdrawing from the ACC in 1971 without a new landing spot, leaving the Gamecocks with two decades in the independent/Metro Conference wilderness?”
Yep, I remember that too. That was a time when ACC hoops was HUGE and the Gamecocks were tired of getting beat up by the NC schools. Dumb decision, no doubt.
LikeLike
Colin – while the gamecocks wondered in the wilderness for 20 years, they landed on their feet. I’d say quitting the ACC was worth it for them.
LikeLike
if South Carolina hadn’t been available in 1992, they probably would never be in. Considering the entire 50 year period, leaving the ACC really ended up being a great move by the Gamecocks.
LikeLike
Alan: “Considering the entire 50 year period, leaving the ACC really ended up being a great move by the Gamecocks.”
I question that statement. Would Gamecock football be better off right now in the ACC? Would Gamecock hoops be better off right now in the ACC?
LikeLike
Colin – I question your questioning of my previous statement.
I thought the one thing we could all agree on is that its better to be in the B1G and the SEC.
LikeLike
Alan,
I’ll throw the B10 repeatedly rejecting ND early last century into the mix. And picking MSU over ND and NE in the 40s. And rejecting Texas in the 90s.
LikeLike
Agreed. Notre Dame is the B1G’s Florida State in that they always wanted in until they were actually invited.
LikeLike
In the late ’40s, Michigan State beat out Pittsburgh (then still a national football power) to replace the U. of Chicago at the Big Ten’s 10th member. Had Pitt won this battle — before Rip Engle came to Penn State in 1950 — PSU, then a far smaller institution, might not have replaced the Panthers in the hearts and minds of Pennsylvanians. It certainly would not have become a B1G member.
LikeLike
vp0819,
In the late ’40s, Michigan State beat out Pittsburgh (then still a national football power) to replace the U. of Chicago at the Big Ten’s 10th member.
Every source tells the story a little differently. Other candidates were ISU, ND, and NE. We may never know how close anyone but MSU came to being chosen.
Had Pitt won this battle — before Rip Engle came to Penn State in 1950 — PSU, then a far smaller institution, might not have replaced the Panthers in the hearts and minds of Pennsylvanians. It certainly would not have become a B1G member.
I don’t know. Pitt fell off in the 80s as PSU hit their peak under JoePa, then they cratered in the 90s. At best, the state may have split east vs west. I think the B10 may still have gone east and grabbed PSU for the Philly market. Maybe MSU would’ve also gotten in to make 12 and a CCG.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting.
FWIW – all of the top 14 are (or soon will be) in the SEC or Big Ten except for Notre Dame at #4. 15 of the top 20 are current or future SEC or Big Ten members.
LikeLike
To break it down a little further:
new SEC (9): 3 Oklahoma, 5 Alabama, 7 Texas, 10 Florida, 11 LSU, 12 Georgia, 13 Auburn, 14 Tennessee & 18 A&M
new B1G (6): 1 Ohio State, 2 Michigan, 6 USC, 8 Nebraska, 9 Penn State & 16 UCLA
current ACC (3): 15 Florida State, 17 Miami & 19 Clemson
Pac-12-2 (1): 20 Washington
Independent (1): 4 Notre Dame
new big 12 – zero
Possible realignment movers: 4 Notre Dame, 15 Florida State, 17 Miami, 19 Clemson & 20 Washington
New topic. I don’t see how the B1G and the SEC will agree to each “P5” conference receiving an equal share of the new CFP.
LikeLike
Alan,
I don’t either, and that’s why I keep stressing the importance of the revenue sharing formula for the expanded CFP and not just the scheduling model.
The current revenue model is actually based on all P5 conferences having a major bowl tie-in. CFP appearances don’t pay much. But with the recent realignment, does the Sugar Bowl want to stay SEC vs B12? If so, do they get paid evenly? That seems unlikely to me. The same questions apply to the Rose Bowl, B10 and P12. And if those change, the Orange might adjust as well.
Many have suggested a model more like the NCAA tournament, with one chunk being split equally and the rest based on CFP games played. I think they’ll change to the equity payouts being adjusted for conference size (so all P5 schools get an equal amount), with G5’s getting a similar percentage to what they get now.
Then it may be “units” just for appearances in the CFP. The SEC will likely push for a “unit” for every game played (as in hoops), but I don’t think anyone else will support that. The SEC will already get the most teams in every year. Plus, it reduces concerns about the unfairness of the rankings with home field advantage if campus games are played. In the 6+6 model, the top 4 spots might be double-valued compared to 5-12 (helps compensate for not getting the revenue of hosting a home game).
Navigate says the current plan is 63% is base payments, with 37% towards NY6/CFP appearances. They also estimated a 12-team CFP could be worth $1.9B.
That’s $1.2B in base payments (P5, G5, lower levels), with $700M based on appearances.
That $700M could be split into 16 units of $44M each. So the top 4 would bring in $88M each, and #5-12 $44M each.
The current CFP pays about $75M per P5, plus $95M to the G5 and $8M to others. That’s 375/478 (78%) to the P5 (64 schools) and 95/478 (20%) to the G5 (~ 70 schools). With expansion, the P5 will now be about 50% of I-A, so I’ll make a slight adjustment and give the P5 80% and the G5 17% (plus an autobid for 1 champ). That makes it $14.1M per P5 school with $204M for the G5 (plus an autobid, so another $44M).
Base payout by conference:
B10 (16) = $226M
SEC (16) = $226M
ACC (14) = $197M
B12 (12) = $169M
P12 (10) = $141M
Rough average appearance payouts by conference:
SEC – 3.5 = $204M
B10 – 2.5 = $146M
ACC – 1.5 = $88M
B12 – 1.5 = $88M
P12 – 1.5 = $88M
G5 – 1 = $44M
ND – 0.4 = $23M
That isn’t weighted for likelihood of getting top 4 spots (except the G5) – I spread that equally.
Total payout by conference:
SEC (16) = $430M
B10 (16) = $372M
ACC (14) = $285M
B12 (12) = $257M
P12 (10) = $229M
Would something like that work? Should more be based on appearances? Less? Should appearances in later rounds be counted?
LikeLike
I definitely think it gets weighted by membership numbers. Now that may be fixed for the life of the contract to discourage poaching or adds from the G5.
LikeLike
Yeah, only ND and maybe FSU are additive now for the B10 and SEC. Miami/Clemson/UW/UNC maaaaybe non-dilutive. Or maybe a little dilutive. Adding ND allows a dilutive member (or 3) in, but not all of Stanford/Cal/UW/UNC/Duke/UVa even with FSU and Miami, most likely.
LikeLike
I could see the SEC agreeing to an equal base playoff split across the 5 conferences provided the base / incentive payouts were flipped (63% for appearances) split by games played so teams that advanced got more like the NCAA BB tournament. It is more likely to be equal by school vs. conference with the base / incentive at a 50%/50% split. Either change will give the B1G and SEC more. The trick is to take more while appearing to be fair and open, so equal distributions by some metric works best for the base. The higher the incentive payment percentage is the more that is likely to end up in SEC and B1G pockets.
LikeLike
What is interesting is how many are B1G/SEC expansion teams. Only Ohio State and Michigan of the original B10 are in the top 20 (top 2 since 2003). Joined by expansion teams Penn State, Nebraska, USC, and UCLA. SEC had 9 including Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. Arkansas was also in the top 20 from 1969 to 2017 so they also looked good when they were added to the SEC. Besides Notre Dame the others usually hanging in at 15-20 are Florida State, Miami, Washington, and Clemson.
The fall of Georgia Tech and the rise of Georgia occurred when GT quit the SEC. Duke also had decent football and was #5 all time in 1960 but only made the top 25 4 times in the next 18 years.
LikeLike
Interesting how it stabilized a lot by the 70s. Those at the top stayed there. Also of note is how high UCLA has been.
LikeLike
bullet,
Televised games had a lot to do with it. There were 8 national games (1 per week) plus 5 weeks of regional telecasts. That didn’t change until the 80s, and by then opinions of schools were set. We went from 89 games on TV in a season to 200 the next after the Supreme Court decision in 1984, but it was too late for most schools to change the national opinion of them.
Title IX also helped further separate the haves from have nots in the 70s. Then TV money grew since the 80s, helping the top teams stay on top. TV drove recruiting which drove winning which drove TV …
LikeLike
A by-product of the full conversion to two-way football? Schools such as Syracuse and Maryland excelled during the one-platoon era of the ’50s.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/college-football-sports-business-d915874f3fe3e3f99411c9db86fa36bc
An important thing to note about ESPN’s package they chose not to pay $380M for:
The deal would not have given ESPN first choice of Big Ten football games in a given week at any point and would have reduced the number of Big Ten games the network could broadcast from the current 27 to about half that number, one of the people familiar with the talks said.
We’ll see if this is also true for NBC, that they never get the #1 game. What about CBS?
Was ESPN being offered the 4th package instead? If so, why was it $380M when CBS is paying $350M?
LikeLike
Brian – we don’t know if Disney was prepared to go anywhere near that high for a B1G package. My understanding was the B1G said $380m or drop dead.
The big question is where would Disney have even placed those games? The 3:30p slot reserved for SEC. Primetime, while not exclusive to SEC, most expect it to be 75-80% SEC. Even if Disney offered 7 ABC primetime and 7 ESPN primetime to the B1G, that would have been crazy money.
LikeLike
Alan,
Agreed.
I think the B10 basically set it up so that ESPN couldn’t get it unless they screwed over the ACC or SEC (or both). I don’t think ESPN could satisfy the exclusive window requirement no matter what, so money wasn’t even an issue. And if they weren’t given any shot at the #1 game ever, there’s no reason for ESPN to mess with their other partners to try to appease the B10. And to top it off, apparently they weren’t going to get any ESPN+ content either, though NBC got some for Peacock. Basically, the B10 wanted to be able to say they offered ESPN a package and that ESPN refused without ever giving ESPN a reasonable chance.
If they got some good weekly picks, $380M wouldn’t be crazy based on the other prices we’ve heard. But for what it sounds like the B10 was offering, it would’ve been vastly overpaying.
LikeLike
Seems like NBC/CBS really are getting 2nd and 3rd pick every week. In which case, as Frank said, he really has to applaud Warren. I’ve got to think that the B10 is protecting some marquee games for NBC and CBS, though (maybe the PSU Whiteout game and USC & UCLA home games? UNL-Iowa and season-ending games at USC & UCLA like ND @ USC?). Possibly no other B10 conference games during their windows?
Otherwise, what NBC & CBS are paying is shocking.
Even getting Fox to pay $500mm for first pick of B10 games (and, OK, some leftover football games and basketball games that just aren’t worth a lot) is better than the $300mm the SEC got from ESPN.
LikeLike
If it is not rescheduled the 2024 USC@ND game will be on rivalry weekend so Fox will take OSU-MI like always leaving the ND game open for NBC.
LikeLike
ND@USC
LikeLike
And was the $380M package offered ESPN strictly for football, or was men’s and women’s basketball part of the equation?
LikeLike
I reckon there was hoops too (like I expect there will be for CBS and NBC) but that is a small deal.
LikeLike
Don’t be surprised if Turner (TBS/TNT) gets somewhat involved in college hoops (especially on weekends) to complement its men’s NCAA tourney coverage.
LikeLike
With the NCAAs and the NBA, TNT/TBS are certainly the most logical channels to join in on the fun.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-subscriptions-tick-up-to-22-8-million.html
ESPN+ subscriptions tick up to 22.8 million
“It’s worth noting that even with the small increase, ESPN+ is still bringing in an average revenue per subscriber of $4.55/month (which is right around where it usually is, give or take a quarter), which translates into over $100 million per month in subscriber fees.”
LikeLike
Alan,
How much of that is the Disney bundle getting people with no real interest in ESPN+?
It’ll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens as their $3 price hike for ESPN+ starts next month.
Either way, having only 23M subscribers shows why conferences don’t want games exclusively on ESPN+ yet.
LikeLike
I get Disney, including ESPN+, because of my Verizon Wireless contract. Not optional at all.
LikeLike
The Murdoch’s need to launch ‘Operation Circle-of-Life’ and use some of that Disney money of theirs to hire away ESPN talent. Not only are Fox Sports’ production values worse, but the on-air talent is marginal-to cringe worthy. Sadly, poaching anyone from ESPN is very unlikely, despite the fact half are B1G grads.
LikeLike
There might be an opportunity in the next few years as ESPiN cycles out its B1G talent for more SEC centric talent as contracts end.
LikeLike
Talent leaves ESPN all the time. For Fox, NBC, The Athletic, and many other jobs.
LikeLike
All time AP top 20 with NCs since 1936 (according to NCAA.com):
new SEC (38)
#3 Oklahoma – 7 (last 2000)
#5 Alabama – 13 (last 2020)
#7 Texas – 4 (last 2005)
#10 Florida – 3 (last 2008)
#11 LSU – 4 (last 2019)
#12 Georgia – 2 (last 2021)
#13 Auburn – 2 (last 2010)
#14 Tennessee – 2 (last 1998)
#18 A&M – 1 (1939)
new B1G (25)
#1 Ohio State – 8 (last 2014)
#2 Michigan – 2 (last 1997)
#6 USC – 7 (last 2004)
#8 Nebraska – 5 (last 1997)
#9 Penn State – 2 (last 1986)
#16 UCLA – 1 (1954)
current ACC (11)
#15 Florida State – 3 (last 2013)
#17 Miami – 5 (last 2001)
#19 Clemson – 3 (2018)
Pac-12-2 (1)
#20 Washington – 1 (1991)
Independent (9)
#4 Notre Dame 9 (last 1988)
new big 12 – zero
The last time a school not in the all time AP top 20 to win a MNC was when GA Tech & Colorado shared the titles in 1990.
LikeLike
TCU just gets no respect. They were #1 in the AP in 1938.
Also, BYU was #1 in 1984.
LikeLike
–I see now Alan. You were just listing titles for the all time AP top 20. Not all titles.
LikeLike
bullet – I wasn’t trying to disrespect anyone. TCU and BYU are not in the AP all time top 20.
FWIW, here’s the other schools – not in the AP all time top 20 – that have won MNCs since 1936. Again, the most recent MNC out of this group is 1990.
ACC (4, but only one while in the ACC)
Pitt 2 – 76* & 37*
GA Tech 1 – 1990
Syracuse 1 – 1959*
B1G (9, but 2 while not in the B1G)
Minnesota 4 – 60, 41, 40 & 36
Michigan State 3 – 66, 65 & 52*
Iowa 1 – 1958
Maryland 1 – 1953*
Pac12-2
Colorado 1 – 1990 – won while in Big 8
SEC
Arkansas 1 – 1964 – won while in SWC
Ole Miss 1 – 1960
future big 12
BYU 1 – 1984 – won while in WAC?
TCU 1 – 1938 – won while in SWC
Independent
Army 2 – 45 & 44
LikeLike
Alan just missed those 2. I was wondering who NCAA.com had listed and both TCU and BYU were there for those years.
LikeLike
little8 – I didn’t miss anything. I included the NCs since 1936 for the AP All Time Top 20 schools. BYU and TCU are not in that group.
LikeLike
Alan,
Let’s point out that many of those claimed titles from the olden days are BS, too. For several schools, not just 1 or 2.
LikeLike
Brian – no. Just no.
I used ncaa.com from 1936 forward. That’s when AP awarded the first MNC. I think everything else before 1936 is BS as they were awarded after the fact.
As I wrote in the OP, the titles I used were limited to CFP, BCS, AP, Coaches (UPI & USAT), and FWAA. I neglected to point out that the NCAA also recognizes the National Football Foundation during that time period, which were included in my post.
LikeLike
Alan,
Many were awarded before the bowl games were played. How many of those MNCs lost their bowl? And how biased were the polls back when games weren’t on TV?
1936: How does anyone know if 7-1 MN was better than 9-1 Duke? MN won the title the year before and was given the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile, 7-1 NW was only #6 despite beating #1 MN head to head because NW lost to #11 ND in the last week.
1946: Army and ND tied, but ND finished #1 despite Army being 9-0-1 against a tougher schedule and ND 8-0-1 all because Army-Navy was a close game.
1951: TN was ranked #1 but then lost the Sugar Bowl to undefeated #3 UMD.
That’s the sort of BS I’m talking about. The fictitious titles from even earlier are a whole different issue.
LikeLike
Brian – back then bowls were seen as a reward for a great season. Thoughts evolved. Later, Bowls were viewed as an extension of the season and the games counted. That doesn’t mean they were BS at the time. I thought you were the “bowl guy” waxing for the good old days and hating the playoffs. Now you are saying the good old days’ championships are BS?
But since you brought up 1936, LSU really got F*@#’d over that year! My Tigers were 9-0-1 and finished #2 to to a bunch of slackers from Minnesota that lost to a bunch of nerds from Northwestern, who got crushed by the Irish on the last game of the season, and those goofballs lost to Navy AND Pitt AND tied USC.
My Tigers did tie a crappy Texas team in Austin in the second week of the season, but that’s beside the point. And we won’t talk about their loss to Santa Clara in the Sugar Bowl either.
Seriously, Brian what championships do you consider legitimate?
The AP, the Coaches, the FWAA, and NFF are all legitimate organizations. Collectively they made judgments calls based on what they knew. Often, those groups disagreed. Your Buckeyes were the beneficiaries of four split titles, including the first split title in 1954 with UCLA.
Which of the Buckeye titles are BS?
LikeLike
Alan,
Brian – back then bowls were seen as a reward for a great season. Thoughts evolved.
Sure, but it calls into question a MNC when the #1 team loses that bowl to an undefeated team that could as easily have been chosen #1. Especially in the era before TV games, when most of the voters didn’t see most of the teams play even once. They voted based on articles and maybe some radio calls. Those are all marginal titles at best.
Later, Bowls were viewed as an extension of the season and the games counted. That doesn’t mean they were BS at the time. I thought you were the “bowl guy” waxing for the good old days and hating the playoffs. Now you are saying the good old days’ championships are BS?
National titles have always been and will always be BS. The bowl days were better, because then you could argue about who was #1 all off season. People didn’t think there was a definitive answer all the time. Now they get fooled by the BCS or CFP into thinking it’s 100% definitive.
Seriously, Brian what championships do you consider legitimate?
None. Not a single one. They are all mythical titles.
You cannot definitively determine the best team out of 130+ with 12 games (or fewer) and a short postseason (or none). At best you find a tournament champion. How often does the loser win a rematch in football? How often does a MBB tournament champ differ from the regular season champ?
The AP, the Coaches, the FWAA, and NFF are all legitimate organizations. Collectively they made judgments calls based on what they knew. Often, those groups disagreed.
Which just shows how BS these titles are. If it was clear which teams were best, all of them should always agree. They made educated guesses that were more or less informed. How much effort did coaches ever put into their votes? Many delegated to an SID. How many writers watched multiple games from all 30 or so teams in contention for the polls they voted in?
Your Buckeyes were the beneficiaries of four split titles, including the first split title in 1954 with UCLA.
This is why I didn’t call out any school in particular. I call them all out.
Which of the Buckeye titles are BS?
All of them:
1942: 11-1 UGA had just as much of a claim if not a better one
1954: Split title says it all. 9-0 UCLA was more dominant in their games.
1957: Split title says it all. 10-0 Auburn vs 9-1 OSU – why is OSU #1?
1961: Split title says it all. 11-0 Alabama vs 8-0-1 OSU – why is OSU #1?
1968: 11-0 PSU had just as much of a claim (though OSU played a tougher schedule)
1970: 3-way split title says it all. 11-0-1 Nebraska vs 10-1 UT vs 9-1OSU – why is OSU #1? UT and OSU lost their bowl games. And what about undefeated ASU?
2002: Fiesta Bowl 2OT game with many questioning a key call by the refs. Miami on a 34-game winning streak and an 11.5 pt favorite. Is that a definitive #1? If they played that game 10 times in parallel universes, how many does OSU win?
2014: Many people didn’t feel OSU should even be ranked #4 and make the CFP, but suddenly they’re a definitive #1? They jumped two 11-1 teams with just as much claim to #4. FSU and TCU both ended up with 1 loss just like OSU, but OSU lost ugly early in the year while FSU lost ugly late. TCU barely lost a rivalry game on the road. If OSU and AL played that game 10 times, how many would OSU win?
Now there are a few specific years where you can make an excellent case for a clear #1, like 1956 OU, 1971 NE, 1972 USC, 1979 AL, 1995 NE, and 2001 Miami. I’ll buy those based on pure dominance all season.
LikeLike
Even the CFP champs have an MNC. Its a limited invitational. But I think anyone with an AP or Coaches poll title is legitimate. And a few others like Arkansas 1964. Note that the NCAA lists a bunch of those that schools like Alabama and Tennessee claim, but most schools don’t. For example, Texas does not claim 1941, 1968 or 1981 (when the NCF named 5 schools co-champs).
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/11/why-the-espn-big-ten-split-shocked-college-sports-and-how-it-impacts-everyone
Interesting discussion of how the negotiations worked. ESPN (having gotten SEC game) didn’t bid on 3:30 slot. They wouldn’t match the evening slot price.
Even some Big 10 people are quoted as being a little concerned the Big 10 is no longer on the ESPN hype machine. Outside people are very surprised.
Article also mentions needing to find homes for Big 10 basketball.
LikeLike
“Even some Big 10 people are quoted as being a little concerned the Big 10 is no longer on the ESPN hype machine.”
I’m not buying this. When I watch college football in the autumn, I look for my Boilers and then Big Ten top matchups and then other top games, SEC, ND, whatever. I don’t give a hoot whether it’s on Fox or ABC or NBC.
LikeLike
Colin,
That’s because you’re a PU/B10 fan.
Most CFB fans are casual fans, and neutral. They believe what they hear, and watch what ESPN hypes because they dominate the midweek conversation.
That may change now that the other networks have incentive to hype other things, but we’ll have to see.
LikeLike
This doesn’t ring true. First, such casual fans, by definition, are not watching ESPN midweek. Second, if there were many “casual CFB fans” of the manner you describe, a TV audience of 1-2 million in a country of 300 million+ would not be considered noteworthy. I think your argument holds for the Rose Bowl, for sure, but not for regular season CFB games.
LikeLike
They don’t have to see it on ESPN if it gets into their twitter feed or other social media from someone.
OSU/MI had 15.9M viewers last year. Combined they barely have 1M living alumni. There are a whole lot of casual fans just watching the big game. For comparison, it takes 15M viewers to break into the top 100 telecasts for the year. 75 of the top 100 are NFL games, and 95 are sports in general. The 6 CFB games were 5 from the CFP (semifinals were on 1/1 and 12/31) plus OSU/MI.
An audience of 1M isn’t considered great, it’s just relatively good within the world of CFB outside of the B10, SEC, and ND. Regular season games that are doing well draw 4M or more.
In a rough count from last year, most weeks had about 12 games get at least 1M viewers, so about half of all rated games.
https://theathletic.com/3410274/2022/07/08/college-football-realignment-tv-viewers/
Last year, we examined the Four Million Club. Those are the games that truly move the needle for television programmers. Much of the action of realignment has been to consolidate the schools that create those games. At this point, the Big Ten and SEC have scooped up most of them.
So how do we evaluate the rest? …
…
I then examined the games between teams that aren’t in or headed to the Big Ten or SEC (and aren’t Notre Dame) when they played other teams that aren’t in or headed to the Big Ten or SEC (and aren’t Notre Dame). Instead of four million, I set the cutline at one million. We still have the same issue of trying to decipher which school people tuned in to watch, but if a team that cracked a million at least 20 times in six seasons did it against a team that cracked a million twice in six seasons, it’s pretty easy to answer that question. It’s also pretty easy to imagine that if the team that cracked a million at least 20 times played in a league with a bunch of schools that regularly crack three or four million viewers, even more people would watch.
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.
…
but if we bring back all the Tigers’ opponents — which include Notre Dame and several SEC programs — the Tigers had a median audience of 2.6 million viewers.
This was far and away the best of the group. In fact, Clemson comes close to Notre Dame, which had a median audience of 2.9 million during the six-season stretch. To understand why everyone wants the Fighting Irish, consider this. In 68 rated games during those six seasons, Notre Dame drew at least one million viewers 67 times. Only the 2017 game against Miami (Ohio) on NBC Sports Network came up short (798,000 viewers). Meanwhile, Notre Dame broke two million viewers 54 times, broke three million 32 times and broke five million 15 times.
So it’s not that 1M is great, it’s just a cutoff that eliminates the worst 2/3 of games for those outside the P2. It left enough games that a distribution formed. If Staples had set the cutoff at 2M, there would not have been enough data (a lot of schools at 0 tells you little).
Note the big difference for the B10, SEC, and ND – 77% of their games drew at least 1M (includes rated games on BTN), vs 31% for the ACC, B12, and P12 with UT, OU, USC, and UCLA games removed. OSU averages over 5M viewers.
LikeLike
Those teams also have a lot of t-shirt fans (and relatives of alums and others with some connection to a school or team or just are from that state) who follow their team pretty religiously, but I wouldn’t call them casual fans. If you match up the fanbase estimates with TV viewership numbers, they tend to match up pretty well. Yes, blockbuster games like OSU-UMich last year and the CFP and Rose Bowl games draw in a lot of casual fans that usually wouldn’t watch those teams, but there are only a handful of those exceptional games each year. For college football, getting over 4mm is pretty good for a game.
Plus, are you trying to argue that casual fans won’t tune in to games shown on major OTA channels because they aren’t hyped by ESPN?
LikeLike
Your definition of “casual fan” seems to be a non-alum. That would not be my definition. To me, a casual fan is someone who decides to watch a game because everyone they know is hyping it – like it’s the local equivalent of the Super Bowl, or is going to a party that revolves around watching a game. One can be a rabid (as opposed to casual) CFB fan without having gone to college.
Btw, I was shocked to learn that tOSU only has 600k alums and Michigan 540k. Stanford, which is a private school with 13k+ students (half undergrad and half grad) has 220k! Go figure. Grad rates really low at tOSU and UM or are they not as big as I thought?
LikeLike
Redwood86, a lot of those Stanford alums got grad (masters) degrees after 1-2 years.
Schools like UMich/OSU have massive undergraduate populations but at the grad school level, there actually isn’t much difference in size between B10 publics and Ivies/equivalents.
Stanford has a little over 9K grad students. Harvard has 14K grad students.
OSU has a little over 14K grad students. UMich has over 16K grad students.
Northwestern has over 13K grad students.
So schools like Stanford and Harvard graduate far more grad students than undergrads each year.
LikeLike
The casual fans are watching on the weekend. ESPN doesn’t just hype teams on SportsCenter. Its who they talk about during the game. Halftime. Deadtime.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
Your definition of “casual fan” seems to be a non-alum.
No, I just don’t know a good source of numbers for non-alumni fans. The NY Times estimated that OSU has 3.2M fans and MI 2.9M. That would still leave about 10M other viewers who are at least neutral if not casual.
Btw, I was shocked to learn that tOSU only has 600k alums and Michigan 540k. Stanford, which is a private school with 13k+ students (half undergrad and half grad) has 220k! Go figure. Grad rates really low at tOSU and UM or are they not as big as I thought?
People die. It puts a cap on the numbers. OSU granted over 17,000 degrees last year. And that 600k number is shaky. I don’t think OSU has an accurate number that they publicize (on different pages at OSU, it ranges from 560 – 600k.
LikeLike
@bullet
I do not think the Big Ten would be attempting this if the Fox Noon strategy didn’t work out as well as it has.
With their Noon Kickoff matching GameDay in terms of importance and ratings, I think it became a lot less important to be on ESPN.
If there’s a clear path forward like that in the future, I think it blunts the impact that ESPN had. All the stuff during the week doesn’t matter if GameDay is no longer a monopoly on the pre-noon start to Saturday. If a half of the college football casual fanbase is starting on FOX, that changes a lot of things.
The path that opens in 2023+ will be Fox’s Noon Kickoff -> Fox’s Noon game -> CBS 3:30 game -> NBC Big Ten pregame+ND postgame show -> NBC primetime game. And in-between there’ll be 3-4 Big Ten games on FS1/BTN.
ND will obviously be the NBC 2:30 slot most Saturdays (unless NBC/CBS swap Big Ten slots to give ND a NBC primetime slot) and Big 12 will likely put their #1 game on the FOX 3:30 slot and some FS1 slots.
That’s a lot of programming outside of the ESPN universe; arguably the best lineup that’s ever been put outside of ESPN.
LikeLike
Noteworthy to me:
ESPN’s clout is such that one conference commissioner says, “It’s surprising that the Big Ten wouldn’t take a few less dollars and stay with ESPN.”
A Group of 5 athletic director calls the Big Ten’s decision a “bad move” and compares it to Big East basketball losing relevance once it left ESPN. “While you can’t ignore Ohio State, you don’t break up with ESPN over a few million per year,” the AD says. “It’s not worth it.”
Ultimately, the money was the sticking point, sources tell Sports Illustrated. The network decided not to bid against CBS for the afternoon slot and declined to meet the Big Ten’s package for the prime-time TV window. The prime-time package—seven years at $380 million per year—included roughly half of the inventory (13 to 14 Big Ten games) that the network currently owns. The network did not feel it was valuable enough for such a steep price, especially given their new SEC deal.
This differs from other reporting, that said the exclusive time window was the primary issue. I still wonder how ESPN could’ve found an exclusive primetime slot.
Starting in 2024, the league is paying the SEC roughly $300 million a year for that conference’s top games. Space is somewhat limited. ESPN has a primary deal with the ACC as well, along with other contracts with Group of 5 conferences. “Half as many games for twice as much money, that gives everyone pause,” says Thompson.
They’d be paying the SEC more if they signed the deal today. That deal was signed before UT and OU joined, which ups the value a little (even if just pro rata). Time has also passed, and rights escalate about 5% per year even inside a deal. In 2 years, that $300M would now be more like $330M. Then add pro rata value for two new members, and it’s $377M – very similar to the B10’s $380M number.
An ESPN-less Big Ten will not see the kind of promotion on the sport’s flagship network it has in the past, most agree.
Says one athletic administrator at an SEC school: “Gotta figure GameDay isn’t going to show up at a Big Ten game very often. You gotta think they won’t be spending too much time on the Big Ten. It’s going to be fascinating to see.”
It’s not just fans saying this. Some people contend ESPN doesn’t play that game, but they do.
From a recruiting perspective, it is a concern for some coaches in the league, one Big Ten administrator says. But it’s not such a worry as it would have been just a few years ago. “Five years ago, they would have freaked out,” the administrator says.
I bet the MBB coaches are more concerned than the CFB coaches.
An overshadowed part of the situation is men’s basketball. Around 80 games once on ESPN will have to find a home, and that’s not so easy, says Thompson. He expects CBS to take some games, but wonders, “Does FS1 step up? Does NBC get a piece with Peacock?”
This will be a big point of concern until the details come out. I could see Peacock being used for this.
From the very start, ESPN was at a disadvantage in the Big Ten negotiations, some believe, because of what experts say is uncommon involvement from a broadcasting rival. Fox representatives were in the Big Ten’s media rights meetings with other networks, a sign of just how integral the network is in decisions.
“It’s unusual to have them in on every discussion,” says one college official. “Fox and ESPN clearly have had a falling out.”
John Ourand said they were getting along fine. Who is correct?
The latest conference realignment moves are coming at the behest of the two networks, many within the sport believe. Each of them is closely connected to the two college football behemoths—the SEC (ESPN) and Big Ten (Fox)—and now each own a majority share of their TV rights.
Thompson, however, does not buy into the theory. First off, commissioners and conference administrators ultimately make decisions in media rights negotiations, he says. And secondly, Fox and ESPN both need a healthy FBS—not a two-conference juggernaut that resembles the NFL. Two 16-team conferences don’t currently cover enough markets, though eventually that might change.
“It might happen down the road, but I bet it’d be closer to two 24-team leagues,” he says. “For both networks, it’s important that the ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12 remain strong.”
…
One thing ESPN won’t do is overpay, says one college football official who has been involved in negotiations with the network. ESPN will use its clout and value—“We have all the sports talk shows!”—as a tool to keep the figure low, he says.
But people keep telling me that what ESPN says doesn’t matter anymore.
For the Big Ten, that environment worked out well. The league devised what many say is a brilliant plan to put out to bid three separate TV windows with intent to negotiate each separately and the goal of partnering with three different networks for a period of six to seven years—half the length of the SEC’s ESPN deal. It ultimately led to a significant pay day for Big Ten schools, estimated to be in the neighborhood of $80 million to $90 million a year in distribution.
Another bonus for the Big Ten is cross-promotional advertisement never seen before in college sports. Imagine Fox, CBS and NBC all promoting their own and each other’s Big Ten matchups during their Sunday NFL broadcasts?
“Having the three flagship networks is unusual,” says Thompson. “From the Big Ten’s standpoint, to have three windows with three networks on every Saturday in this era of cord-cutting is a tremendous accomplishment.”
I’ll be surprised if the networks cross-promote B10 games much. They’ll hype their own, of course.
All of it is good for college sports, says Oliver Luck, the former college athletic director and NCAA executive.
“Take the 50,000 foot view,” he says. “If you care about college football, you want as many of the big broadcasters as possible spending as much money as they can.”
One of those broadcast networks, CBS, has left many puzzled. The network has one of the best TV packages in American sports history, owning the SEC’s top game for about $55 million a year in a deal that ends next season. In 2020, the network pulled out of a bidding war with ESPN in negotiations to extend the package. And now, two years later, CBS is paying roughly $50 million more for the Big Ten’s secondary game than ESPN is for the SEC’s top game?
Those within the college sports and TV industry say CBS misread the market during SEC negotiations, not expecting media rights to soar in the same way college football coaching salaries have elevated so quickly.
“The SEC is the best product outside of the NFL,” says one conference administrator. “You’ve paid more for a second- and possibly third-tier Big Ten product and you are going against the stuff you gave away?”
Through the years, many believe CBS’s relationship with the SEC deteriorated. Even when the league expanded to add Texas A&M and Missouri, the network refused to increase its payment to the conference despite it being ghastly low. “I don’t think there is any doubt that Mike [Slive] and Greg [Sankey] were not happy with CBS. They wanted more,” says a former conference administrator who knows the situation well.
I agree, the math looks odd from the outside but I ran the numbers above. Besides, I really think bad blood prevented CBS from having a shot at the SEC for a reasonable price. The B10 being in NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, and DC helped too.
With the new Big Ten deal starting in 2023, CBS will have one year in which it owns the rights of the Big Ten’s second-tier game as well as the top SEC game—an interesting crossover quandary. The SEC’s contract with CBS requires its game to be exclusively aired by the network at 3:30 p.m. ET.
The Big Ten’s deal will be arranged in a way to allow CBS to fulfill its SEC duties in the first year of the contract, a source tells SI, though details were not provided.
Any guesses on how 2023 will work? Primetime on CBS when NBC has a ND primetime game? Noon games when Fox doesn’t have the #1 pick?
LikeLike
TNT (or TBS) could be a good option for MBB. TNT’s NBA broadcasts and studio show are superior to ESPN. In fact TNT’s studio show crushes ESPN and is the “go-to” for “conversation”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s been no word of Turner getting involved, but they’d be a reasonable outlet. They’d need to build up a MBB team, but their NBA stuff is supposed to be good.
LikeLike
TNT/TBS now belong to Warner Discovery, whose CEO has made a lot of noise about expanding sports programming, specifically via those channels. They took the NHL package that did not go to ESPN.
LikeLike
The G5 AD who claims that the Big East lost relevance is out of his or her mind. The Big East sent 6 teams to the last March Madness, equal to the SEC and Big 12. Less than only the B1G, which had a terrible tournament, and more teams than the ACC. Sounds pretty relevant to me.
The NYC, Chicago, LA, Philly, DC “help” is enormous and cannot be overstated. The networks must be thrilled with a national conference (excepting the southeast). I do not believe that CBS or NBC would have been involved without that geographical reach.
I have said this before. The SEC is great, but geographically limited. There will probably be many casual fans all over the country who discover B1G football consistently being on three of the four major networks. At the least that is what the networks probably expect.
As an aside, I can pretty much guarantee that virtually everyone in NYC (and NJ), DC and Baltimore, Philly, Chicago and LA (and other big cities) can get the networks for free by antenna. Yes, free. Watching ads has always been part of the package, even though there are lots more today than in the past. Viewers may hate all those ads, but they watch anyway.
LikeLike
I’ll be surprised if ESPN doesn’t go hard after the Big East for MBB when their TV contract with FOX expires. They fill several of the cracks left by the B1G moving on.
LikeLike
Alan,
The ESPN family showed around 80 B10 MBB games last year. That’s a lot of holes to fill for ESPN, and a lot of games the B10 needs to find a home for.
It’s a shame they couldn’t agree on MBB if not CFB.
LikeLike
The simple solution is for FOX to dump BE basketball for B10 basketball. That will allow ESPN to pick up BE BB. The FOX BE contract runs for 2 years after the new B10 contract starts but FOX has already subed 20+ games every year to CBS so they could sub the rest to ESPN or more to CBS networks.
LikeLike
For the rapidly-growing sport of women’s basketball (whose Div I tourney airs exclusively on ESPN networks), I would hope FS1 (and, to a lesser extent, FS2) would complement BTN’s fine regular-season coverage if ESPN doesn’t get involved. Fans at Maryland, Iowa, Michigan and elsewhere are increasingly interested.
LikeLike
It is not clear if FS1/FS2 will be picking up the lower-level content in the new deals that ESPN2/U is airing. However, ESPN has every incentive to promote all of games in the tournaments / Playoffs / Bowls they air, regardless of what conference the participants come from. The same is not true for regular season football. If game day talks up a B10 game, they are implying the viewers should switch channels to FOX. That is why the expectation is that ESPN will promote the SEC/ ACC games airing on ESPN/ABC, in effect saying, ‘stay tuned’.
LikeLike
Yes. We have all learned to hold the bathroom break and fridge run. And now, we have our phones to attend to! lol
LikeLike
Miami and Washington are still on the board as well.
I actually think there’s scenarios where both end up in the Big Ten and you end up with a truly national conference in every region.
Any move to 20+ requires the Big Ten to add to the NW and SE completing a national build out.
I actually think some of the travel issues are overrated.
Washington, Stanford, USC/UCLA, Miami among others are close enough to major airports that it’s really only the airplane part of the equation that matters.
Some places are a lot harder to get to if you add bus travel and change overs (see Swarbrick comments about other sports traveling to FSU).
Regardless even if the Big Ten goes fully national, doesn’t really affect the SEC.
There’s plenty of room for both. The intensity of fan support in the South enables that conference to matter nationally. You definitely have that at enough Big Ten universities, but Big Ten has a chance to have alums/fans everywhere and to play in all the markets so it matters in a different way.
Either way as Swarbrick himself said there’s effectively 2 solar systems in college athletics and everyone is trying to align with them.
LikeLike
This is also a part of why NBC and CBS signed on, I think everyone that matters know it’s only a matter of time until the next round of consolidation.
Disney went all in on the SEC knowing that.
CBS, NBC also wanted a seat at that table.
We are very likely to reach a point with 2 conferences of 18-22 schools each.
Those ~40 schools will likely include most of the 20-25 schools that really move the TV needle on a national basis and will include most of the big universities in nearly all of the highly populated areas.
If it gets to that point, you don’t need further consolidation down to an league of 32 since you’re already basically at that point.
LikeLike
Hey, as I’ve said before, I’m all for the Big26.
Bring in ND+UW+Stanford+Cal+UNC+UVa+Duke+GTech+FSU+Miami!
The B10 probably won’t win all those battles with the SEC, though (and yeah, a bunch of those schools are dilutive).
But I’d settle for ND+UW+Stanford+Cal+Duke+Miami (and I’d trade FSU for Duke/Stanford/Cal if possible).
LikeLike
The only way it works out geographically is with 4 pods of 6 (USC/UCLA/Oregon/Wash/Stanford/Cal) PACIFIC
(Maryland/RUT/PennSt/Miami/UNC/DUKE) ATLANTIC
The three ACC additions being very fluid.
LikeLike
To be honest, I don’t think he SEC will go over twenty, and I believe they will be successful in getting who they want. Clemson/FSU/UNC/UVA. In that case, I hope the B1G stays at twenty with ND/Stanford/Oregon/Miami (or Wasington)
LikeLike
UVa will be chosen before Miami. The Cavs’ rivalry with UNC, especially in football, is dramatically underrated.
LikeLike
z33k,
I think the travel issues become bigger if they go past 16. For the current 14, this latest addition is one trip to LA per sport at most. And for the LA schools, it’s a few each. But if you add schools in the NW and SE, you’re guaranteeing multiple really long road trips for every sport for every school. That’s a big difference.
And that’s ignoring playing all the current members a lot less frequently.
LikeLike
Well, unless you split in to pods and concentrate games heavily in your home pod for non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
I agree for sure, but I think when the conference gets to 20, you add a 10th game.
I doubt non-conference games will matter at that point. Just play 2 gimmes.
LikeLike
Not going to read a bazillion replies, so NSIAP. Some key nuggets and increased clarity from the last few days:
Can’t quickly find the article now, but I read that the B1G won’t be doing many/any B1G After Dark games. Basically said the schools don’t like them and the conference and TV aren’t going to force them into it. B1G After Dark really only works on Cinemax, and they didn’t bid.
Further confirmation that ACC/B12/Pac schools that don’t make the B1G/SEC aren’t likely to be left out. While Swarbrick said that it looks unlikely that a third (Super) Power conference would form, because of too many complications to making it happen, he still foresees something like a 60+ school grouping after the B1G and SEC ultimately finish expanding. Perhaps in a 3rd large conference but with less TV money than the 2 giants.
I could take Swarbrick’s interview at face value, or I could note that he’s still in negotiations with tv bidders, the ACC on various issues, including travel, behind the scenes with the B1G, and wants to influence the playoffs decision.
The “Fox and ESPN aren’t at war” line from yesterdays SBJ podcast, also highlighted by the former Fox Sports exec, seems important. They’ll probably continue to cooperate on the B12. Not sure if that helps the conspiracy theories that TV would help the B12 gut the P10ish, some which claim FOX would want an expanded B12 to lock ESPN out of more P5 territory, others of which claim ESPN would want a B16+ so they could get a beefed up MWC from the Pac leftovers and get more of their second After Dark games at a discount. I still think the end result of the Pac negotiations is a P10 and B12 through at least 2030.
Can’t say for sure, but the Oregon president taking the Northwestern job suggests any negotiations on a move of Oregon to the B1G isn’t on the table for at least a year, even if Notre Dame soon decides to join. Not something an interim president is likely to be in charge of. I’ve also wondered if any westward expansion without ND might be limited to just WA and Stanford. And the value of any Pac adds drops a sliver if the B1G isn’t going to do many/any After Dark games.
LikeLike
Warren already talked about the power of 4 time slots on Saturday, so I certainly expect some After Dark games.
LikeLike
Where will B1G After Dark take place? NBC when SNL has an open date? More likely a Purdue at UCLA on FS1, if at all.
LikeLike
Nope, not a OTA channel. So FS1 or a streamer. UCLA fans may have good reason to get whatever streamer signs up with the B10.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-president-michael
The B10 has poached the P12 again. NW is hiring UO’s president. That’s unfortunate timing for UO and the P12, which both would like some stability.
University of Oregon president Michael Schill is leaving his post in Eugene. He’s headed to the Big Ten Conference, where he’ll take the same job at Northwestern.
The timing stinks.
The uncertainty for UO is precarious.
…
The Pac-12 Conference desperately needs stability. These are tumultuous times and Oregon’s position as a tentpole of the conference demands a strong, stable voice in the room. Schill’s departure to Northwestern will spark some doubt and uncertainty.
He was UO’s 18th president. The Ducks will soon be looking for No. 19. After beloved Oregon-native Dave Frohnmayer left the post in 2009, UO shuffled through campus leaders at a blistering pace.
Two years with Richard Lariviere at the helm. Two more with Michael Gottfredson. The instability made the campus uneasy. Then came Schill, who is now in his seventh year on the job.
Schill recently served as chair of the Pac-12’s CEO Group. He was the face of the conference when it canceled football amid the pandemic, and the guy who spoke first when it came back. Pac-12 headquarters wasn’t aware that Schill was leaving for Northwestern until I tipped them off on Thursday morning. They’re currently focused on more pressing matters.
LikeLike
Forget Beyonce, ‘Canzano & Wilner’ Epy1 has dropped!!! -🔥😉 Apple/Spotify etc.
LikeLike
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/disney-recommits-to-a-key-business-area?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
The headline is a little misleading. Lots of cord cutting discussion.
“Group revenues, Disney said, rose 26% to $21.5 billion, topping Street forecasts, while overall subscriber totals for its Disney+ hit 152.1 million, topping analysts’ estimates by around 3 million.
Disney added 14.4 million subscribers over the quarter, with ESPN+ totaling 22.8 million paid subscribers and Hulu rising to 46.2 million. Disney’s total subs of 221.1 million are now narrowly ahead of the 220.67 million last tallied by Netflix.”
I wonder how many ESPN+ subscribers are not in the Disney bundle.
It looks like there are many many more Disney princess fans than sports fans out there.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/34375865/texas-aggies-tops-annual-underachiever-tiers-college-football
Article only available to ESPN+ subscribers, but here’s the skinny:
Texas A&M Aggies top annual underachiever tiers of college football
Tier 1: Angst in Aggieland: Texas A&M
Tier 2: L.A. and the Longhorns: Texas, USC & UCLA
Tier 3: Fading Dynasties: Nebraska & Miami
Tier 4: League Title Lulls: NC State, UNC, Minnesota & Ohio
Tier 5: Lacking Spark in Group 5: USF, Colorado State & Toledo
Tier 6: Just Make a Bowl Game: Colorado, Rutgers & Arizona
LikeLike
Disney’s earnings call claim of a sub victory over Netflix is a bit misleading. Their sub counts may be comparable but whereas Disney’s ARPU (average revenue per user) is $4.35 Globally, Netflix’ is $12.50. Also, Disney lost 1.2 B in Q2 whereas Netflix made 1.4B. Pure sophistry. Anyhoo, back to expansion. Here’s Sankey on Dan Patrick. No word-salad with this guy. He reminds me of Swarbrick. Not surprised they’re so close. It also sounds like he knows more.expansion is coming.
LikeLike
Just two observations. Sankey confirmed that which we knew. There will be no large committee trying to keep all of the leagues happy. A few “smart people” will do it. In other words, Sankey, Warren, and whomever else they invite for input will make a decision and that is it.
Dan Patrick again brought up the idea of large leagues and relegation. I wonder if he gave any thought to what he was asking. Sankey ignored the question.
Relegation is an impossible system for college sports. How could a school exist knowing that in year 1 its income from a conference is $60 million, but by year 3 they could get relegated. Relegated to what? A B leagues that pays $12 million?
How could a school budget for that? How about recruits? How could a school get any recruit when the future is so uncertain?
How could a kid be recruited knowing that when he/she comes in the schedule is FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC, etc., but a year or two later it could be Memphis, East Carolina, Temple, and Florida Atlantic instead?
I personally do not believe that any of the P5 leagues will at any time in the foreseeable future kick out member teams. The only time that has ever happened was Temple and the Big East and that was because Temple refused to support its football program, despite being given several years to do it. I do not think that Temple football ever averaged 20,000 attendance, though it was in a P6 league. In 1995, Temple average attendance was under 5,000.
If a league collapses, there will be casualties left by the wayside. No one believe that Wash State or OR State will “survive” a PAC collapse. They will both be in the MWC or nowhere. Similarly, Wake Forest (and others) have no home (AAC probably) if the ACC disappears. North Carolina is just too crowded with college football programs. The PAC or ACC will not be kicking schools out, it will just happen due to circumstances beyond league control.
Letting things just happen also minimizes the chances of courts or Congress suddenly getting involved.
If some form of ACC survived, how could Wake continue if it faced relegation?
LikeLike
None of the objections you have to relegation will prevent it from working in college sports.
>> How could a school exist knowing that it income greatly decreases if relegated?
Transition payments is what occurs in Europe; soften the blow, but still a lot less money. Thought is if you do not perform your team does not deserve the money it is getting. Some teams bounce back and get promoted in a year or two. Others are left in the wilderness sort of like SMU and Rice after the SWC collapsed.
>> How could a school get any recruit when the future is so uncertain?
No school is going to tell a recruit it plans to be relegated. If it occurs that is what the transfer portal is for. Could have an exception to the one-time rule for schools regulated. There is a lot of personnel movement when a club is relegated.
>> A problem you did not raise was markets. If Rutgers was relegated what would that do to BTN revenue? This is handled in Europe by having multiple teams in most major markets. The Premier League has 6 teams in metro London, 2 each for Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester. Therefore, relegation does not cause the loss of a major market. The minor markets do not move the needle. The fan base lost is replaced by the club promoted.
>> If some form of ACC survived, how could Wake continue if it faced relegation?
After the ACC is raided and loses it top 4-6 teams Wake will be a mid-tier ACC team after the ACC backfills with G5.
>> I personally do not believe that any of the P5 leagues will at any time in the foreseeable future kick out member teams. … AGREED. I think that is a long way away, if ever due to the markets problem and regulation not being used for any US professional league.
LikeLike
All of your comments work for the pro leagues. Not so much for college.
For example, there is only one team in the NYC market of 7.4 million TV homes. No replacement exists.
LikeLike
My question about the effect of a Rutgers relegation on the BTN was a rhetorical one. I know there is nothing else in the NYC market. That is the real killer of relegation that cannot be overcome. It gives the conference no control over markets being lost or gained which is an unacceptable cost. The unfamiliarity of US fans with the concept is another negative since no US pro league uses it. The Euro leagues make money off of relegation, promotion tournaments, etc. that is all except the clubs that get booted. Makes the games between clubs at the bottom of the table mean something.
I expect the BE Temple model will be used vs. a relegation scheme if it ever comes to removing schools from a conference. As long as most schools in a conference are not having trouble meeting their athletic budgets there is no pressure to boot anyone. If the popularity and payments for college football fade such that networks start bidding 40% or 50% LESS at contract renewal than the only way for the top schools to reduce the revenue loss will be to decrease the slices of the pie either by getting together to form a super league or more likely just booting a few schools with low financial value from the 16-20 school B10/SEC. The way media bids are going it is unlikely there will be action to cull conference members in the next few decades.
LikeLike
The problem with what you describe is that there isn’t much markets overlap in the Big Ten/SEC.
That’s why relegation is hard to do. Relegation works in a much smaller country with lots of teams near one another.
In the Big Ten and SEC, you potentially lose entire state populations if you have relegation.
And none of the top dogs will ever want to be relegated.
LikeLike
Little8,
“None of the objections you have to relegation will prevent it from working in college sports.”
Absolutely nobody in power wants relegation. That’s the only objection that matters. That said, I think several of his objections are exactly why nobody in power wants relegation. Presidents hate risk.
“>> How could a school exist knowing that it income greatly decreases if relegated?
Transition payments is what occurs in Europe; soften the blow, but still a lot less money. Thought is if you do not perform your team does not deserve the money it is getting. Some teams bounce back and get promoted in a year or two. Others are left in the wilderness sort of like SMU and Rice after the SWC collapsed.”
Relegation is used in professional soccer. Those clubs don’t have 20+ other sports associated with them that are also supported by the TV money. Pro clubs can cut or trade players as needed to get their budget under control. Title IX doesn’t not exist in Europe. Pro soccer clubs are not state entities.
It’s apples and oranges.
“>> How could a school get any recruit when the future is so uncertain?
No school is going to tell a recruit it plans to be relegated. If it occurs that is what the transfer portal is for. Could have an exception to the one-time rule for schools regulated. There is a lot of personnel movement when a club is relegated.”
The bigger issue is the transfer portal. Every good player on a relegated team would transfer. Every recruit would decommit and switch to a top level team. A relegated team could end up with only 50 players on the roster.
“>> A problem you did not raise was markets. If Rutgers was relegated what would that do to BTN revenue? This is handled in Europe by having multiple teams in most major markets. The Premier League has 6 teams in metro London, 2 each for Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester. Therefore, relegation does not cause the loss of a major market. The minor markets do not move the needle. The fan base lost is replaced by the club promoted.”
The TV networks would pay a lot less with this risk involved. The sport could easily regionalize to the point that most of the country tunes out.
“>> If some form of ACC survived, how could Wake continue if it faced relegation?
After the ACC is raided and loses it top 4-6 teams Wake will be a mid-tier ACC team after the ACC backfills with G5.”
That doesn’t prevent those G5 teams from outperforming WF as soon as they get big money.
LikeLike
The Super League scenario of 20-30 teams breaking off and creating their own NFL are more likely than relegation, and that scenario isn’t very likely at all if most of the top 20-30 teams find their way into the Big Ten/SEC where there’s likely just another 10-15 teams that bring other markets/populations into the mix.
I think we’d just see some form of less equal revenue sharing (maybe playoff teams keep more of the playoff revenue cut) than any sort of Super League or relegation scenario.
LikeLike
I just don’t see relegation working.
Relegation is built into the DNA of Europeans, no so Americans. Even MLS has stated that relegation would be too confusing to the fans.
LikeLike
z33k,
Agreed. A CFB-only league that takes the top tier of programs would be the path it has to take. Much like the soccer superleague, every school would need permanent membership.
I think that model is a long ways off, because everyone is about to get influx of cash from the CFP expansion. It will take a major structural change (paid players, etc.) to make the top programs go searching for yet another huge revenue bump.
LikeLike
Most importantly, relegation ignores the history and culture of college conferences, the rivalries and mutual relationships. It is like the blank slate theory in psychology and sociology.
People who come up with schemes like relegation or super conferences evidently have never set foot on a college campus nor have any relations who have.
LikeLike
I remember when the B10 actually had 10 members and SMU got the death penalty for providing a fraction of the $$ being paid out in NIL. Since big money has entered into college sports in the last 30 years traditions and rivalries have been dumped in pursuit of the $$$. Both USC and UCLA will be dumping most rivalries to join the B10. With the latest moves and media contracts the start of super leagues is already here called the SEC and B10. By adding another 4-8 schools those conferences will contain all of the valuable ones. In the next 30 years if the money starts to fade there is likely to be some consolidation either by the B10/SEC culling out the weakest members, or if that is not possible forming a new league from the top schools in both. That is actually less disruptive than what any school that moved experienced.
I agree there will be no relegation scheme like in European Soccer leagues since there is no control of who could come into a conference: WVU, BYU, or Liberty could be promoted. It will also be many years before any school in the SEC/B10 gets removed since the current focus of these leagues is to capture a larger share of the $$$ available from other conferences.
Just this week Sankey said he wanted to get rid (reduce?) of the NCAA basketball autobids for the small conferences so that more at large bids could be provided. This despite the SEC only winning the MBB championship 3 times in the last 20 years (B10=0). The only games that the SEC won in the 2022 tournament were against small conference autobids. In games against 5 single bid conferences the SEC went 4-1 (probably still miffed that St. Peters upset Kentucky). The 6 SEC teams had one other win. 5 of the 6 SEC teams got upset by double digit seeds. It looks like the SEC wants to skew the tournament results and take more of the money by not allowing the D1 BB only conferences to compete on a level field. That is the true nature of current college sports.
LikeLike
I don’t think a promotional/relegation format is a good idea at all for college football and the main driver of realignment is that the biggest brands want more guaranteed money and status (hence the Texas and USC moves) by consolidating more national brands. That’s essentially the opposite of promotion/relegation.
However, I will say that most promotion/relegation proponents are very much college football fans and are justifiably upset that schools like my own alma mater of Illinois or Rutgers or Mississippi State are included and protected in the P2 while schools like Oregon and Washington and, further down, schools like Wake Forest and BC are in the P5 while the G5 has little to no chance of improving their lots in life even if they go undefeated.
The fans of schools that are hitting glass ceiling of the next level are the ones that love promotion/relegation proposals. Once again, I don’t think it’s a good idea or realistic, but totally get where it’s coming from emotionally.
LikeLike
That 60 team question left him real uncomfortable. You could see his face twitch.
He had a good answer. Well when you start with 60 people ask when are you going to ;64 or 68?
Things may happen in that direction, but it doesn’t sound like it will be planned. Sankey talked about big picture discussions, so something like that would have to result from overall restructuring of the sport.
LikeLike
“Like many others, Thompson believes that the Big Ten’s inclusion of NBC ensures Notre Dame’s independence, something its own athletic director suggested to reporters Wednesday. The Irish, as expected, don’t seem to be in a hurry to join any league and are now likely to use the new market rates to mine NBC for more cash.”
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/11/why-the-espn-big-ten-split-shocked-college-sports-and-how-it-impacts-everyone
LikeLike
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdnTEUO4EEgeBg6ie-hH_O7WdNKHVm1JRBXEag8v3CoEi2dmw/viewform
The Athletic is running a survey about CFB and broadcasting. Above is the direct link to the survey, so you don’t need to be a subscriber.
Sports fans love to talk about how games are broadcast, but college football is unique in the sports landscape. With the wide variety of viewing options, along with the role television plays in conference realignment, it’s always a hot topic, and everyone has an opinion.
As the season nears amid more realignment and new conference media deals — including the Big Ten moving away from ESPN in the future — this is a good time to gauge the temperature of the fans. What networks do you like watching? Who are your favorite announcers? Is this all good for the sport?
Take the survey below and give us your thoughts. We’ll share the results later this month.
LikeLike
Not great survey design! They really should have included some “Don’t Know” or “No Preference” options.
LikeLike
Ross: “Not great survey design!”
I agree, these questions are somewhat clueless. I watch the football games that I’m interested in watching without regard to which network or who the announcers are, and I believe 95% of college football fans do the same thing.
LikeLike
So in the process of forming 1 of the 2 top college football leagues, the B10 has become the SEC of college women’s volleyball.
About half of all national champions in college women’s volleyball ever are current or future B10 schools (this is actually slightly better than the SEC in college football since 1981).
LikeLike
Also more than half of all men’s college volleyball national titles ever.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/08/cbs-big-ten-sec-schedule-accommodation-rights-deal/
The Big Ten’s imminent media rights deal with CBS will be structured in such a way to allow the network to carry its final season of SEC football, Sports Illustrated reported Thursday. Next year marks the first season of the new Big Ten media rights deal and the last season of the CBS SEC contract.
CBS is expected to carry Big Ten games in the same mid-afternoon window currently occupied by its SEC coverage. The network is contractually obligated to air SEC games in that 3:30 PM ET window each week. Given the Big Ten is expected to maintain a regular Noon ET window on FOX and primetime slot on NBC, it is not clear how CBS will be able to fulfill its SEC duties without stepping on a competing Big Ten window.
It should be noted that the CBS SEC deal only mandates games beginning in week three of each season (a leftover stipulation from when CBS had rights to US Open tennis), meaning that the network could carry Big Ten games with no conflict in the first two weeks of next season.
CBS did air split-national coverage of SEC and Big East games from 1996-2000, but there is no reason to believe that either the Big Ten or SEC would consent to such an arrangement.
So the B10 can play on CBS at 3:30 the first couple of weeks in 2023. The other 11-12 games? They’d need to be at 12 or 8, or perhaps sub-licensed to FS1 or something. They could perhaps add some games around Labor Day and on Black Friday.
Maybe Fox and CBS swap windows several weeks, and NBC can swap with them when ND has road games.
LikeLike
With NBC paying so much for the B10, many are suggesting ESPN will (or should) try to outbid NBC for ND to keep ND and the B10 apart as well as get all the ND games for themselves.
I think ND prefers to stay with NBC, so ESPN would have to greatly outbid them.
I think the more interesting question is what if Apple or Amazon came in with a huge offer to ND. $150M (or even $200M) per year would be pocket change to Apple or Amazon, but no linear network would come close to it. Would ND be willing to make that move, since the deal wouldn’t start until 2026?
LikeLike
After listening to Swarbrick praising the Big Ten/NBC deal repeatedly… there’s like no chance that he walks away from NBC.
He finally gets the doubleheader programming that he’s wanted to bump up the value of ND games… and then he bolts NBC?
He’s already leaked his price: $75 million. As long as they’re somewhere around there, he’ll be okay.
LikeLike
And Swarbrick has talked repeatedly about needing a national tv provider; not a chance he talks to a streamer about the whole package.
Peacock getting 1 game a year is the limit imo.
LikeLike
Proof of the value of CFB.
LikeLike
From it’s 2nd & 3rd choice games each week.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/12/sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-march-madness-expansion
Having done his best to screw with CFB, now Greg Sankey wants to mess up the NCAA tournament.
Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey, probably the most influential person in college athletics, said Thursday he wants to take “a fresh look” at the NCAA men’s basketball tournament—perhaps with an eye toward expansion of the current 68-team field.
Sankey cautions that he is “not ready to make headlines there yet.” But he also is open to conversations about a Big Dance that doesn’t exclude small-conference champions while potentially including more teams.
As an example, he mentions the 2022 College World Series baseball championship, which was won by SEC member Mississippi—the last team into the 64-team field.
“If the last team in can win the national championship, and they’re in the 30s or 40s from an RPI or [NCAA] NET standpoint, is our current approach supporting national championship competition?” Sankey asks. “I think there’s health in that conversation. That doesn’t exclude people. It goes to: How do we include people in these annual national celebrations that lead to a national champion?”
…
Sankey stresses that he said the tourney “could” change, not that it would. But the suspicion among some mid-major and low-major programs is that their automatic bids would instead be given to more teams from the rich and powerful multi-bid leagues.
“March Madness will become much more controlled by a handful of schools,” Florida Gulf Coast president Michael Martin told a Fort Myers TV station recently. “And automatic qualifiers that we now get from being in the A-Sun will disappear.”
…
“I thought [SEC member] Texas A&M should have been in the field in basketball [last season],” Sankey says. “People didn’t agree. But the way they played at the end of the year, I firmly think they were one of the better teams in the country. I’m biased. But somebody else, Dayton was one of the first four out.
“Look at what UCLA did as an 11-seed [in 2021], what Virginia Commonwealth did as an 11-seed [in 2011], what Syracuse did as an 11-seed [in 2018]. Those are three teams that played [in the First Four] in Dayton and went to the Final Four eventually. It should broaden our thinking.”
(Sankey was conflating two Syracuse appearances. In 2016, it made the Final Four as a 10-seed that did not play in Dayton, but played against Dayton. In 2018, Syracuse was in the First Four in Dayton but was eliminated in the Sweet 16.)
One potential method of expansion—which was not raised by Sankey—would be to have a quartet of First Fours, one at each region. That would increase the total number of bids from 68 to 80.
But quadrupling the moving parts also would increase the logistical hurdles for the NCAA. Getting eight teams to Dayton in short order after Selection Sunday, then dispersing the winners to various sites around the country with a fair chance in their first-round games, is not easy.
Still, Sankey sounds willing to explore several options for a bigger Big Dance.
“Just take a fresh look at all of it,” he says. “As we think collectively, everyone goes to the corner and says, ‘I have to hang on to what’s mine.’ But how do we contribute and build it better together?”
Yes, what the tournament needs is more mediocre P5 teams in it. Why not just eliminate the regular season and give all P5 teams autobids?
LikeLike
Eh, the MBB regular season is already almost meaningless for the top teams.
Anyway, the writer wasn’t exactly thinking outside the box. If you have a First Four for each regional, they don’t have to all be held in Dayton. Even if Dayton stays as the First Four for the Midwest, I’m pretty certain they could find East, Southeast, and West First Four sites as well.
LikeLike
There are more rumors floating around that ESPN will be lowballing the PAC with something like $25 million per team.
Assuming, big assumption, that this is true, is it worth it to Fox to bid closer to $30 million per team to control the West Coast? In other words, bid just enough to keep the PAC alive, but nothing more. Giving the PAC a $300 million per year contract would actually be cheaper than adding more PAC teams to the B1G and might keep the league alive for inventory purposes.
Fox could then have their late night football slot and maybe in a few years convince the leagues to add some games like Michigan Oregon, Washington v PSU, etc., that would be major TV draws.
LikeLike
FOX appears to have no interest in competing for late night fb viewers.
They’re putting all their emphasis on the earlier part of the day starting with Big Noon Kickoff show + game.
At most I can see them offering a 3:30 FOX window to the Big 12 and some FS1 windows to try to get some exposure in the south/southwest.
Problem the Pac-12 has is lack of bidders.
LikeLike
Fox and ESPN aren’t the only distribution channels.
CBS may want to fill their primetime timeslot. Various streamers may be interested too. So the Pac likely will have fewer bidders than the B12 (which I expect both ESPN and Fox to go after), but I doubt they will be left with only an ESPN bid.
LikeLike
Bernie: “There are more rumors floating around that ESPN will be lowballing the PAC with something like $25 million per team.”
I don’t think that’s lowball. For a PAC minus USC and UCLA and 60% in the Pacific Time Zone, they’d be lucky to get $250 million.
LikeLike
If I was in charge ofthe Pac-12, I would strongly consider only giving ESPN the rights to place games on the ABC & ESPN channels, and limit the number of non-Saturday games. If that leaves a lot of inventory to place and no other broadcast networks are interested, then be the pioneer with Amazon or maybe Apple.
LikeLike
Redwood, there is logic to that but bear in mind that the PAC conference TV network was and is a train wreck. And it seems that without ESPN, they really don’t have a viable Plan B. Another consideration, if they limit the number of non-Saturday night games, they further reduce their marketability.
LikeLike
Do we know that they don’t have a plan B? I would be shocked if at least some streamers don’t bid. Possibly CBS too.
LikeLike
CBS is like FOX. They need the football fans to get some sleep so they can get up and catch their early NFL games. ESPN/ABC has no Sunday NFL. NBC only has prime time NFL on Sunday, but they already have B10 in the prime window and SNL in the late window.
LikeLike
Yes. Pac-12 is in a relatively weak position, but the Thursday/Friday games are a killer – unless in primetime. As for CBS (7pm Eastern), and Fox (3:30pm and/or 7pm), they may have non-“after dark” time slots. I wonder if regional OTA broadacst network rights would be worthwhile selling – for example 7pm eastern/4pm Pacific only for markets west of the Rockies? Of course, such rights could not be exclusive – a streamer should be able to simulcast.
LikeLike
Low-balling the Pac could play into the hands of the B1G and Big 12. It would encourage the latter to absorb the “four corners” schools to give ESPN a late-night choice, while Fox might be persuaded to bring in Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington to give it late-night football under more profitable B1G auspices and better financial conditions for the conference — and whether Notre Dame likes it or not, it would then be in line as member #21 (leaving the other three slots open for future ACC emigres).
LikeLike
Been thinking a lot about Big Ten (and SEC) expansion in the 2030s and I think there’ll be a fair bit of target overlap.
Big Ten expansion index:
Tier 1 (these schools can be #17 or #19, justify bringing a pair onboard due to TV money being there for these schools + at least 1 partner):
Notre Dame
Florida State
North Carolina
Miami
Tier 2 (these schools bring markets or have football brands that resonate regionally, most likely come with other schools but may not financially be sufficient without buy ins):
Washington
Oregon
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Tier 3 (filler schools that let you visit a market and are strong academically but can’t carry home markets/regions alone and aren’t likely involved without a Tier 1 school):
Stanford
Duke
Georgia Tech
Tier 4 (could be considered but don’t fit athletically or financially or culturally):
Clemson
Cal
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Utah
That’s basically the list of schools that I can see and their places in this.
I would note that I’ve thought a lot about FSU and Miami, and I think the Big Ten would seriously consider adding them if available.
The next 14 years is critical for all the schools on this list but especially Miami and Oregon.
Those 2 are legitimate championship contenders but aren’t necessarily perfect fits for the Big Ten, and the next 14 years will be important to see how their brands and status changes over time.
LikeLike
SEC expansion index (to go with my post above for Big Ten).
Tier 1 (these schools can be #17 or #19, justify bringing a pair onboard due to TV money being there for these schools + at least 1 partner):
Notre Dame
Florida State
North Carolina
Clemson
Tier 2 (these schools bring markets or have football brands that resonate regionally, most likely come with other schools but may not financially be sufficient without buy ins):
Virginia
Virginia Tech
NC State
Tier 3 (filler schools that let you visit a market and are strong academically but can’t carry home markets/regions alone and aren’t likely involved without a Tier 1 school):
Duke
Tier 4 (could be considered but don’t fit athletically or financially or culturally):
Miami
WVU
Pac-12 schools
Major difference between SEC and Big Ten targets are Miami and Clemson. Miami isn’t a perfect fit for the Big Ten but culturally it’s similar even though it’s not anywhere close to say USC in size, Clemson fits SEC culturally.
Also NC State, I can see the SEC strongly considering NC State if the Big Ten gets UNC. SEC is more limited to targets in the Southern half of the ACC while Big Ten can always go to build the West Coast if it misses East.
Even with market overlap, Clemson resonates enough nationally that I think it can be justified as T1 to the SEC. Their TV ratings have been great during this run Dabo has had them on, unless they fall off massively in the next 14 years it seems reasonable to think they find their way to the SEC with a couple others in the 2030s.
LikeLike
Other than my doubts about Clemson, I agree with your entire analysis. As long as the ACC is stuck together for another ten years or so, Clemson will be able to prove its value, or fall off the list. Clemson does not need to fall off dramatically, but if they became an 8 or 9 game winners, it might be fatal for the SEC.
Right now, I think that if the ACC suddenly collapsed, the primary immediate value of Clemson to the SEC would be to keep it out of the Big 12, which would claim Clemson in a second. Clemson would not even bring South Carolina, since the SEC already has the state, but they do get TV eyeballs. That plus recent great success probably would be enough for the SEC fight now. Plus with SEC money, it would be a lot easier for Clemson to keep up the success.
I just have real doubts that Clemson can continue their King status in the ACC, without SEC type money.
I also agree about Miami. If they can regain their glitter, they are in a good market, etc., but they need to prove that they can win again. When Miami is down, no one in South Florida cares about them and they are not a FL statewide team. They do have alums for NIL money.
When they are on top, they are a very big deal down there. With Miami and countless B1G alumni, would Miami cause FL to be a B1G state?
Miami is very different than UF or FSU, both of which have significant presence all over FL.
LikeLike
Yeah, Miami’s pull in-state is generally not going to extend much to the northern half of the state.
But that school has such high competitive potential that when it matters nationally, it resonates on TV.
It doesn’t have the statewide pull that FSU and UF have, bit I don’t think that’s quite as big an issue since the cable box story isn’t quite as important.
Much more important is whether a school can pull ratings on national TV. Miami can get to top 5-10 ratings and pull those kinds of numbers.
Just has been a while since that was the case.
The good thing is that we have another 10 years of evidence coming.
Miami’s best chance in a while is under Cristobal and with NIL. We’ll get a good sample size as to whether they can make anything of it.
LikeLike
I refer back to that post Brian posted that showed overachievers in their timeslot. Of the free candidates (not already in the B10 and SEC), really only FSU (and ND, which is underrated by that methodology) with WVU (very slightly) overachieve. That means that everybody else being considered really are only good so long as they winning. That includes Miami, Clemson, and UO. At least Miami and Clemson are in very fertile recruiting areas so have a better shot at winning big (so are the NC, VA, and NoCal schools but other than a brief moment with Vick/under Beamer, none of them have contended for national titles). So other than ND and FSU, Clemson, Miami, UW, and the NC/VA/NoCal schools are borderline (GTech and Duke are below borderline but have great qualities outside of financial considerations). Worth bringing in as an even number school with ND or FSU but not otherwise. Probably only ND could bring in 3 other borderline schools.
LikeLike
It really depends on what kind of performance we see out of Miami and Clemson as well as Oregon and UNC. Those are the 4 where performance matters most imo.
The next 10 years, I think of as an audition period.
Which school(s) can have success at the highest level.
UNC for example recruits way above their results due to their location and overall brand, but the results haven’t worked out.
Miami is a supernova when they’re top 5 good but they haven’t been that good in any recent stretch.
Oregon’s been the best of the Pac-12 but hasn’t won a national championship.
Can throw Washington in this discussion as well.
LikeLike
Without specifically addressing your tier categorization, I think that the likely outcome of further expansion will result in:
SEC taking in UNC & NC State plus Florida State, and Clemson
BiG taking in UVA & Virginia Tech; Notre Dame & either Stanford or Miami; maybe Washington & Miami, Stanford, Oregon or Cal; and possibly two additional Pac teams.
Unless the BiG decides to soon again move west unilaterally, or Notre Dame decides it wants to join the BiG by 2025, the next realignment move should originate from the ACC. If that is the case, I can see Stanford’s viability withering over the next decade, as its recent success has been coach-driven rather than culture-driven and the “guns-for-hire” environment may cause it to de-emphasize/quit football. If Shaw were to leave, I would be surprised if Stanford hired a good enough replacement coach to continue competing at a high level.
The best possible outcome for the western teams would be for the SEC to move to 22 with UVA and Virginia Tech or 24 with Miami, GT and/or Duke, so that aside from ND the BiG can really only look west.
LikeLike
Stanford’s recent success has been built on money and academic prestige. Neither will go away (Stanford alums will not become poorer). They will still have excellent facilities, academic opportunities, support for student-athletes (all students, actually), a powerful alumni base and thus get nearly all the top recruits who really care about academics.
Honestly I’m not terribly impressed with Shaw as an in-game coach. Sure, he’s been able to keep up the level of recruiting Harbaugh started but as I mentioned, a lot of Stanford’s advantages sell themselves to a certain niche of recruits.
LikeLike
Shaw, for all of his faults, is by far the best coach Stanford can attract AND retain – primarily because he is an alum and appreciates the Stanford Way. Every other good coach has bailed for a better gig at the earliest opportunity: Ralston, Walsh, Green, Willingham (and he wasn’t even that good), and Harbaugh. In MBB, Montgomery bailed too – not for 18 years, but that was because he failed in his early-years attempts.
I think Stanford’s advantages that you cite guarantee a baseline of medicority over time, but to excel the school needs good coaches to stay.
LikeLike
By money you must mean alumni donations. No school, none, uses its endowment for athletics. In part because it would be a stupid waste of resources, but mostly because gifts are almost always restricted to specific uses, like scholarships in a particular discipline or and endowed chair or a building.
Money plus prestige gets you the Ivies, Harvard, Yale et al. That looks like Stanford’s future if they can find Ivy-like partners. I can’t think of any other Ivy-like school on the west coast.
Happy talk aside, the future looks grim for Pac X sports.
LikeLike
Actually, it was built on the arm of Andrew Luck (class of ’12!), Followed by the legs of Christian Mccaffery. Lightning struck twice in succession giving the Cardinal a decade of aberrational success. I agree that Shaw is a good fit and someone they would be loath to replace.
LikeLike
Bob, yes, I mean alum donations.
The difference between Stanford and the Ivies is that Stanford alums actually care enough about football to donate big money to Stanford football (well, 1 alum especially).
LikeLike
You’re not splitting UVa and UNC; too many people from outside the ACC area simply don’t understand that. They’ve been longtime football rivals dating back to the close of the 19th century, and until 1957 — five years into the ACC — the Cavs and Tar Heels were season-finale opponents. (Duke, and more recently N.C. State, took over that role.) As long as Tech and State get in the SEC with UVa and UNC wind up in the B1G, state legislators will be satisfied.
LikeLike
Prior to June 30th, I would have agreed with you. However, with UCLA splitting with Cal (the flagship of their own shared university system), I don’t think we can say that there any absolute required pairings in realignment anymore. There might be strong preferences, but absolute assumptions are gone in my mind.
LikeLike
Frank that will depend on state legislatures and any particular state laws relating to their state universities. For example, many years ago, UF did not want to play FSU in football. The FL legislature was about to pass a statute requiring the game, but the governor intervened and the two sides agreed without the legislature acting.
We have no way of knowing whether other states will keep schools tied together.
LikeLike
I agree with Frank here.
The Mizzou-KU Border War was heated and had gone on for a century.
Same can be said for the Backyard Brawl.
A&M-Texas too and was even in the same state.
OU was willing to dump the RRR if it meant the Pac.
And of course Cal-UCLA.
No rivalries are sacrosanct any more.
(UVa probably kicking itself now for not joining the B10 when it had the chance).
The bigger issue is that all the NC and VA publics are borderline candidates.
They are not Texas or USC (king brands in massive markets and terrific recruiting grounds) or even FSU (potential king brand again in a really big market and terrific recruiting grounds). Arguably not even Miami (a smallish private but located in a big market and insanely great locale, so you can see the potential).
Thinking of it more, the NC and VA publics are kind of like IU and PU in IN (albeit with better demographics, recruiting grounds, and 1 school in each state has a better academic rep, true). If IU and PU weren’t already in the B10, would either the B10 or SEC take in both or even 1 of them?
LikeLike
Richard: “If IU and PU weren’t already in the B10, would either the B10 or SEC take in both or even 1 of them?”
In 1896, if Purdue University president James Henry Smart had not hosted 6 university presidents in Chicago – the University of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, Northwestern University, and Lake Forest College – would the Big Ten exist?
Would conferences exist? This was the first one.
LikeLike
Still depends on the state. Recall that the VA Gov and legislature forced the ACC to take VaTech rather than another team. No that is not the same as saying that they are a package deal for a new league, but the VA politicians and presumably those from other states will be watching closely. We have no way of knowing if nay will interfere. https://www.wralsportsfan.com/virginia-tech-s-unique-journey-to-the-acc/16733003/
LikeLike
That Virginia situation was the equivalent of an inside straight for legislative power. At the time, it would take 3 dissenting votes in the ACC to block expansion. UNC and Duke opposed ACC expansion in any scenario, so it would only take one more school voting against it to block it. That’s the only reason why the Virginia legislature was able to press against UVA to get VT into the ACC. If UNC and Duke hadn’t already been on the record as opposing expansion, the Virginia legislature wouldn’t have been able to force anything on UVA.
So, it’s all circumstantial. I think in a clear P2 world, state governments are going to understand that they can’t hold anyone back from a P2 invite (even if certain interests will definitely try).
LikeLike
I’ve touched on it in other posts, but I’ll mention it again here. UNC, UVA, NCSU, VT, and Duke are an unusual combination of schools in terms of future realignment potential. UNC and NCSU are part of the same system and share a board and numerous sports rivalries. The VA govt has stepped in before as it relates to UVA and VT sports. UNC and UVA have a long history together. The UNC and Duke MBB rivalry is popular and valuable. VT and NCSU share similar campus environments and strengths. All of them help to fragment the lucrative NC and VA markets. What would it take to split this bunch up? Is there a way for them to solidify the ACC after the current deal expires? What combinations generate the most value to the SEC and B1G? For example, does UNC/UVA to the B1G and NCSU/VT to the SEC make financial sense or does it just further divide two states that already are fragmented from a sports perspective? The bar to leave is clearly higher than it was pre UT/OU and USC/UCLA, but what does that mean when the GOR expires?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Frank is 100% right on this.
Texas, OU, and UCLA dropping all of their “brothers” has changed the game permanently.
If we’re in a Power 2 world, then getting a spot there for a state’s school(s) is/are the absolute priority over trying to save multiple schools.
Washington and Oregon probably don’t have “little brother” issues due to that reality; if push comes to shove, they will instantly accept Big Ten invites if/when they arrive. Yes, Oregon State and Washington State probably have political pull, but at this point staying in the Pac-12 will only cause long-term damage to the state’s interest if it can’t get the flagships into a better position.
Same applies to major rivalries.
UNC-Duke and UNC-UVA are both major rivalries for UNC and of course there’s also NC State, but they have to look out for themselves and then try to figure out what they can save if the Florida schools and Clemson bolt the ACC.
Florida State-Miami is an interesting one; maybe that rivalry gets kept if Florida State goes to the SEC since the UF rivalry would move into conference and the Miami one out of conference.
But yes, at this point, we’re at the most cut-throat phase of expansion. There’s not that many slots left at the Power 2 table and the Big Ten/SEC want schools that move the needle. The reality is there aren’t that many school at play here, and so the schools at question have to secure their spots.
LikeLike
@Bob
I actually think the ACC having so many schools in the NC/VA area has diluted their brands in the same way that the SWC was dilutive upon the Texas schools.
Yes, there’s terrific cfb viewership in NC/VA but it’s diluted because there’s so many schools being followed in that area (and that’s before you factor in all the out-of-state transplants).
Obviously, the powers that be will want to hold the ACC together, but I think the problem is that the football value in the ACC is mostly in Florida State, Miami, and Clemson.
Thus, the problem the ACC has is that whether it holds together financially is up to the Florida schools and Clemson.
And realistically, Florida State, Clemson, and Miami are likely to be the first ones trying to bolt. If they have landing spots elsewhere, the whole thing starts to fall apart.
At that point, UNC, UVA, Va Tech, NC State, and Duke have to see what their options look like.
LikeLike
Oh, right, Bedlam too. If OU was willing to drop Bedlam so easily (and A&M the Texas game; and let’s be honest: they are both as or bigger deals locally than the various NC/VA rivalries locally), then no rivalries are sacrosanct.
LikeLike
The reason I split the Virginia and NC schools the way I did is that I think where those schools end up may come down to a negotiation between the BiG and SEC. And if not, I would look for the SEC to snag 2 North Carolina schools first, prompting a quick response by the BiG. I doubt that one conference will be able to get UNC without the other conference getting wind of it in advance and trying to pre-empt it. But, as I said before, as a Pac-12 guy I would love to see the SEC get both the Virginia schools and North Carolina schools. That would force the BiG to look west.
Btw, it is quite ironic that Disney is becoming the Confederacy network for sports – lol.
LikeLike
Yeah I mean everyone knows the dates at this point.
And the Big Ten may make things completely obvious if the next TV deals expire in 2030 and then a 6 year deal expires in 2036… the same date when the ACC TV deal expires.
2030-2032 is when you would realistically expect to see lots of chatter between the Big Ten/SEC and FSU, UNC, Clemson, Miami.
Those 4 schools are the ones that are going to be the ones that control the action.
I fully expect the Big Ten to engage FSU, UNC, Miami, while the SEC engages with FSU, UNC, Clemson.
The rest of the schools are mostly going to be hangers on, though I’d expect both conferences to also talk to UVa.
My opinion has changed a lot on all of this because of the Big Ten’s move on USC/UCLA. It’s pretty clear that you try to secure the biggest brands in the best markets and then worry about the rest.
LikeLike
z33k: “2030-2032 is when you would realistically expect to see lots of chatter between the Big Ten/SEC and FSU, UNC, Clemson, Miami.”
It seems to be that the lines of demarcation have already been drawn. I think we’ll see a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the SEC and Big Ten in which the SEC goes east – FSU, UNC, Clemson, Miami, UVA, whatever – and the Big Ten goes west – Wash, Oregon, Stanford, Utah, Colorado, whatever.
I think both conferences will avoid “turf wars” aka TV market area conflicts and be happy to end up as the P2 reigning over the G8 and lesser riff-raff.
LikeLike
I mostly agree with you except I don’t think the SEC will want 3 schools in FL while the B10 definitely would want Miami for an FL presence.
Also, ND (or FSU) have to join for B10 expansion to make sense.
LikeLike
I agree with you. It is about brand and markets, your analysis is spot on. I happen to think FSU would prefer the SEC, and keeping the B1G out of Florida would be reason enough to add an already good brand (and avoid any issues with the FL legislature if it came to it).
I am not nearly as sold on Miami as others are, but who knows, the B1G could make it work well the the Hurricanes too.
I think the B1G would love to have UVA, which would be a great school to compliment Maryland/DC.
LikeLike
Thing about Miami is it sort of does have its own section of South Florida to itself (as far as physical location) despite the fact that UF/FSU have brand power across the state which makes them more valuable by default of carrying the whole state.
Miami’s home base is reasonably strong and supportive, and realistically it’s the only school other than FSU/Clemson that can recruit at the level required to win national championships.
And if they get back to that level, the TV ratings will be there just as they are there for Clemson right now.
As far as the remaining schools available, only ND and FSU are probably as strong bets going forward. Clemson’s sort of iffy because it depends entirely on Dabo. A lot harder to say Clemson can be at this level permanently though they obviously have built a strong brand under him.
I think the Big Ten would take a long look at Miami if FSU chooses the SEC (as we all expect).
LikeLike
I mostly agree with you.
But being located in very fertile recruiting territory is a strong advantage. I don’t think anything is permanent for almost anybody. Note that of the 6 super-kings (Bama, LSU, UGa, UF, Texas, and OSU), only OSU hasn’t suffered a down period in recent memory. And those schools have more resources/money/local recruiting grounds than anyone. Of the regular kings ND, UMich, PSU, OU, FSU, USC (and Tennessee and Miami if you count them), only OU hasn’t had a down period in the past 2 decades (but they also suffered through a down period after Switzer).
Anyway, we agree that ND and FSU are really the only schools the B10/SEC definitely want to add.
LikeLike
The big upcoming battle will be over FSU.
That’s the only piece on the board left (besides ND) that would be an additive (or at least not dilutive) addition to both the B10 and SEC.
Will either/both of the the B10/SEC add NC/VA schools for essentially prestige/demographic reasons? It’s possible, though I wouldn’t bet on it if I had to choose.
LikeLike
Another way this could play out:
In the early ’30’s the SEC wins FSU and also UNC and UVa (taking them essentially for prestige purposes). Also adds Clemson. Doesn’t actually increase their per capita TV money so expanded essentially for prestige purposes and to destroy the ACC (thus owning the entire South).
Seeing the changing landscape and that the B10 is already a national conference with a national TV schedule with the additions of Miami and Stanford, ND joins the B10 with Miami, Stanford, and UW (unless Cal or GTech somehow go on a Clemson-like run over the next decade in which case they may edge out UW).
The B10 and SEC could then essentially dictate the post season. Probably a 16-team playoff with no saved slots for conference champs.
LikeLike
With 20 teams, each team can have 4 annual rivals and play the other 15 teams every 3 years. Expect the protected annual games to be a lot of heavyweight matchups besides the traditional rivalries.
So Miami would get all 4 of the northern kings of ND, PSU, UMich, and OSU.
ND gets USC, Stanford, Miami, and Michigan.
Besides ND, OSU, Wisconsin, MSU, and UNL will all have games out west.
LikeLike
Another thing to note is that while Stanford, NU, Duke, Cal, and UVa have small to tiny fanbases, they have wealthy alums (UMich and ND have both large fanbases and high-income alums; USC and Miami have wealthy alums and a high ceiling when they win big). If UVa is out of reach, I wonder if Duke/Cal could take that 20th spot to join ND, Stanford, and Miami in the B10.
LikeLike
Also, if the B10 took Miami, Stanford, nd Duke along with ND (with USC, Stanford, Miami, and also UMich as locked games for ND), ND would have about as national a schedule as they have now. Big shift is that about 2 games would shift from the Carolinas/VA (where there are relatively few Catholics) to the Midwest (where there are many more Catholics).
The biggest region (where there are Catholics and recruits) ND wouldn’t be visiting as a member of the National Big 20 would be TX/LA, but ND could always just schedule an annual Shamrock Series game there or ask Navy to host games down there.af th
LikeLike
I really don’t think the Big Ten or SEC would take Duke without UNC.
It just doesn’t make sense.
Duke and Stanford really require the pairings with UNC and ND to work out: Miami’s the only private other than ND that makes sense on its own financially.
For example, if the Big Ten loses out on UNC/UVa, you can make the argument for Miami to be paired up with Washington or Va Tech in a move to 18.
LikeLike
Fair, though VA is too small a state to be worth sharing with the SEC.
Miami possibly worth paring with UW (or Cal, if Cal can somehow consistently get to double digit wins this coming decade).
LikeLike
Another possible scenario:
It seems that FSU and UNC (which are definitely southern schools) prefer the SEC.
Tough to say about UVa.
It’s possible for the B10 combo to be ND+Stanford+Miami+UVa.
LikeLike
Yes, I think the case can be made for Miami + 1 in a move to 18 if the Big Ten misses out on UNC (and FSU which we all expect to go to the SEC) and then wait for ND+Stanford.
Miami + UVA is pretty logical if the Big Ten misses out on UNC.
Miami + Washington or Miami + Va Tech are both reasonable alternatives to me as well. Va Tech is somewhat underrated in these discussions; it’s clearly the stronger brand in Virginia due to Beamer’s run and it’s the larger state school there by a fair bit (roughly 50% larger) and the brand is stronger outside of UVa’s region.
I know the Big Ten was originally considering Ga Tech as well, but that was a 2010-2012 move and I just don’t see that working now. UVa + Ga Tech just doesn’t work that well now; can’t see it being a financially viable pair like it may have been 10 years ago.
LikeLike
I guess the argument for Georgia Tech is they are AAU, located in Atlanta which is the 10th largest TV market.
LikeLike
Rice is AAU, in the 8th largest TV market, and is even more academically prestigious but nobody is adding them.
Atlanta has a ton of B10 alums as well, but sadly, GTech has the fanbase, drawing power, and academic hurdles for athletes of a smallish academically elite private school.
LikeLike
Excellent point about Rice. It seems however the BIG is interested in the East and West coasts.
LikeLike
The B10 definitely wanted to be in TX if there was a worthwhile add, but Texas went to the SEC and for that matter, so did A&M and OU.
LikeLike
Yeah the problem with Ga Tech is that while it has great academics, it’s a large school, and has a great location and okay fan support, it just appear to have very miniscule ownership of that market relative to what the SEC would claim through UGa and the rest.
Ga Tech has a strong football history, but this discussion is as much about that as weighing the future.
Ga Tech hasn’t de-emphasized fb, but it feels like they’re just not going to be as competitive moving forwards when you look at recruiting trends and the like.
Problem is we’re not just weighing cable boxes and the like anymore.
The athletics brand of the school (in terms of how the school can generate viewership in matchups and recruiting) really matter a lot now.
LikeLike
The changes have not helped GTech. And GTech, while a public, isn’t actually big for a public (if you don’t count their huge number of online grad program students).
GTech seems to draw as much T-shirt fan support (from folks who are in no way associated with the university) as privates Stanford and NU.
LikeLike
If the B10 adds ND+Stanford+Miami+UVa to become the B20 (so without Cal and Duke), I believe there would still be slightly more B10 (B20) alums at the top 10 MBA programs and T14 law schools than Ivy grads (though barely).
LikeLike
Again, I believe the SEC will get the four it wants. UNC/Clemson/FSU/UVA. The most interesting question is whether the SEC will be willing to leave Miami on the board for the B1G to scoop up. My preference for the B1G would be Stanford/ND/Oregon/Miami. Still, It seems odd that Washington and/or Duke could be left blowing in the wind.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the B10 will take UO when they can take UW instead (bigger market, more B10 alums in Seattle, better academically and just as good in football). So if ND plays ball, ND + Stanford + UW + Miami to the B10 is a distinct possibility.
Duke being left behind is just the same as other basketball kings like KU, Louisville, Arizona, and Syracuse being left behind.
The expanded Big Paclantic conference could be a real basketball powerhouse. Depending on who owns the TV rights, the B10 may well decide to set up a Big10-BigPaclantic basketball challenge as MSU, UMich, OSU, and UCLA face off against KU, Louisville, Arizona, and Syracuse.
LikeLike
I agree with Richard that the Big Ten may lean towards Washington over Oregon if it comes down to 1 spot in the Pacific Northwest.
Washington’s a much bigger school with a larger market, and academically it’s got high prestige and is one of those giant research institutions that fits in perfectly with the rest of the Big Ten.
Oregon’s got the Nike brand and has been recruiting at a higher level than Washington, but who knows whether that’s a temporary or permanent phenomenon. Next 10-12 years matters a lot.
I’d give the edge to Washington if the choice was being made right now.
Miami + Washington is actually a pretty reasonable play to 18 in terms of putting the Big Ten in the Pacific NW and Southeast with just 2 schools (if FSU/UNC/UVA are off the table).
Miami’s value is that it can recruit at the level needed to win the national championship beyond its location/market in South Florida.
SEC doesn’t need Miami when it has Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU as regular contenders and those are being joined by Texas, Texas A&M, OU, and theoretically FSU and Clemson. That’s a lot of schools that can win the national championship. They don’t need Miami.
LikeLike
I am really rooting for Cal to somehow string together double digit win seasons over a decade and turn their large alumni base in to college football fanatics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that Oregon’s days in the AAU are numbered. Nebraska is constantly held up as the Big Ten’s poster child for poor academics, but UNL is considerably superior to Oregon in research activity. If the choice is between UW and UO, the former is obviously the far superior option. After their experience with Nebraska, I can’t envision the Big Ten Presidents extending an invitation to the Ducks.
I would rate Cal’s chances for a Big Ten invite to be much higher than those for Oregon (not that I view an invitation to Cal to be likely, although I would love for them to be in the conference).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah Oregon’s been on watch for a while.
Just speculating, but I think Berdahl’s leadership period until 2011 and the messiness of the Nebraska exit is why their membership evaluation got pushed off a while.
AAU wants schools to leave voluntarily if they’re no longer meeting the AAU’s metrics; they don’t want contentious votes.
Given Iowa State leaving this year though, it does feel as if Oregon will be out of the AAU in the next couple of years (unless they pull off some kind of longshot play like trying to take over OHSU which was Oregon’s medical school back when they entered the AAU before spinning off the medical school).
I do think there’s potentially a real issue for the Big Ten presidents in that Oregon is not a major research university compared to the rest of the Big Ten universities.
Plenty of non-AAUs like Arizona State, Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech look much more compelling when you compare them academically in terms of graduate research and expenditures.
Washington checks all boxes including being in a big market and having a strong brand; I just think there’s not an obvious partner out there which is the actual problem.
LikeLike
The first question re U Washington may be whether USC and UCLA are interested in adding them. The two LA schools may be very happen not giving Washington better access to the the LA recruiting area. That should be highly relevant, since Washington is not exactly a vital addition to the B1G.
If Indiana and Purdue did not want Notre Dame, there would be a huge yawn by the B1G and they would be ignored. I am not at all sure that would happen with Washington and the LA schools.
In addition, Seattle is nearly 1000 miles from LA. It is not exactly an easy drive for non-revenue sports.
At some point the B1G could have an odd number of teams and need one more that might be a factor that brings U Washington in the B1G, but short of that I would give the LA schools a veto.
LikeLike
To be honest, I don’t think that stuff matters anymore. Nobody is going to block anybody else out of joining a conference.
The “USC/UCLA don’t want Washington/Oregon with them” was spread by Wilner/Canzano sources most likely from Cal/Stanford/Oregon State that are trying to keep the Pac-12 together and need UW/UO to keep it viable.
If Washington and Oregon had won 5 national championships the last 15 years between them, they would be coming with USC/UCLA. Wouldn’t even be a question. If OHSU was a part of Oregon, they might already be coming to the Big Ten. I really think the academic issue may hold Oregon back.
This is cold, hard financial math about brand values/market values/demographic values/etc. The same applies to the SEC. A&M threw a public stink but got rolled; most other schools won’t make a public stink about these kinds of situations.
Florida/South Carolina won’t be able to hold off FSU/Clemson if the SEC powers that be determine that’s where the money is. Not even clear Florida cares much given they’re the flagship and they already play FSU annually; letting their little brother in isn’t a big deal tbh. South Carolina on the other hand might feel that Clemson’s brand is way bigger than them; that may be a real issue.
As far as Washington goes, I do believe they end up in the Big Ten at some point, paired with Eastern schools.
UW market and brand have value, and it fills out the West Coast along with Stanford if they come along with ND. Academically they’re the same as the Big Ten schools.
I just don’t think there’s an obvious pair right now with Washington so there’s no movement. But that likely will change in the 2030s.
LikeLike
I do not think UF would actively work for or against FSU. If the rest of the SEC and/or ESPN wanted them in, fine. If not, then they would probably vote for FSU in a 1-15 vote just for political cover. No single school can take every single elite recruit in Florida anyway.
LikeLike
Yeah conference politics on expansion mattered a lot in the 80s-00s.
Back then there would be schools staunchly opposed to expansion like Michigan in the Big Ten or UNC/Duke in the ACC or the Texas politics of Big 12 formation.
Back then a single school or governor could change things dramatically like Northwestern being convinced that they wouldn’t be kicked out if Penn State was #11 or UVa being the swing vote to add VA Tech.
These days none of that matters. These matters are much more tightly controlled at the top and everyone wants to improve conferences through realignment.
FSU will get invited to either Big Ten or SEC with no issue in the 2030s.
LikeLike
Bernie: “The first question re U Washington may be whether USC and UCLA are interested in adding them.”
Reportedly, USC has already said that they did NOT want any more West Coast teams. I continue to believe that Colorado would be a better choice than UW: roughly equivalent TV markets, football brands, academics, plus the logistics of Colorado would make all-sports team travel for every school in the Big Ten easier rather than more difficult. This includes USC and UCLA. LA to Seattle is 960 miles, LA to Denver is 830 miles.
Colorado’s archrival is already in the Big Ten, Nebraska. Plus we’d get a stake in the Mountain Time Zone rather than yet another in the Pacific Time Zone.
LikeLike
Colin,
… I continue to believe that Colorado would be a better choice than UW: roughly equivalent TV markets, football brands, academics, plus the logistics of Colorado would make all-sports team travel for every school in the Big Ten easier rather than more difficult. This includes USC and UCLA. LA to Seattle is 960 miles, LA to Denver is 830 miles.
Colorado’s archrival is already in the Big Ten, Nebraska. Plus we’d get a stake in the Mountain Time Zone rather than yet another in the Pacific Time Zone.
* Seattle is #12 with 2.1M TV households to #16 Denver’s 1.8M
* I’d argue UW’s brand is slightly better – #19 on Winsipedia’s rankings vs #23 CU
* UW’s academics are better – #12 on MUP’s “Top American Research Universities” (7 of 9 measures in the top 25, same as UCLA) vs #52t (4 measures in 26-50, same as IU)
* I don’t see a big advantage in travel for the LA schools due to the time change, since 130 miles is just a few minutes of flight time. It would be a noticeable plus for everyone else. But if travel was important to these decisions, the LA schools wouldn’t be coming.
* The rivalry would be good for NE, though Iowa would then be left without a season-ender.
* Why does the B10 care about the MTZ? It’s less than 7% of the US population. What advantage does having a school in the MTZ confer? It doesn’t add a TV window, and they’d be less enthused about playing at 10:30PM ET than Pacific schools would be.
LikeLike
During BIG media days didn’t Warren say something about being in 4 Time Zones?
LikeLike
Just a boasting point. I think he’s counting a small sparsely populated sliver of western NE.
The B10 won’t expand if CU doesn’t bring enough money (and they don’t seem to). For that matter, UW may not either.
I think a lot of people would like Cal to actually be good at football and draw interest because they have higher potential and are top-notch in all the non-financial aspects.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian: “I don’t see a big advantage in travel for the LA schools due to the time change, since 130 miles is just a few minutes of flight time. It would be a noticeable plus for everyone else. But if travel was important to these decisions, the LA schools wouldn’t be coming.”
That analogy is actually inaccurate. When the eastern 14 schools of the Big Ten send their Olympic teams – golf, tennis, whatever – to LA, they will obviously play doubleheaders with both USC and UCLA. Thus the travel to the West Coast will realistically be half the frequency (per team) compared to going to a solo Washington.
You also stated that ” . . .if travel was important to these decisions, the LA schools wouldn’t be coming. . . ” Those LA schools are coming because they are in the #2 TV market and both of them are top brands, especially USC. Washington brings neither of those things. As I said before, Colorado is roughly equivalent in those regards.
LikeLike
Other than CU not being as good at football lately (and thus garnering paltry interest) compared to UW.
LikeLike
Colin,
The comparison is UW to CU. For the LA schools, I don’t see much travel difference between those 2. For the other 14 schools, Denver is a marked improvement. But if the B10 cared a lot about travel, it wouldn’t stretch from NYC to LA in the first place. So I’m not convinced the travel advantage means much in the decision-making process.
If “roughly equivalent” means notably worse in every metric, then sure:
* Seattle is 17% larger
* All-time W%: 0.614 vs 0.575 (#18 vs #35)
* W% since 1998: 0.526 vs 0.430 (#57 vs #98)
* Most viewed over 2015-2019: #28 (1.32M) vs #58 (610k)
* UW leads CU on 9 of 12 metrics that Winsipedia tracks
* #12 vs #52 on MUP list
CU’s only advantages are location (for travel) and the NE rivalry. Everything else clearly favors UW.
LikeLike
Brian, it seems that you are cherry-picking your data points. In the past three years, Colorado was 13- 17 in football but that includes opponents Texas, Texas A&M, and Nebraska plus the Buffs were 2-0 vs Washington. Washington was 15-14 with a game vs Michigan but all other OOC games were cupcakes. There really isn’t much difference between these two football programs. As I said, they are roughly equivalent.
Regarding the travel difference the eastern 14 schools to Seattle vs Denver, Denver is not merely a “marked improvement”, it would reduce trips to the West Coast by almost 50%, all sports considered. And as I previously mentioned, Colorado already has an archrival in the Big Ten whereas Washington has none.
LikeLike
@Colin
The traveling stuff really doesn’t matter anymore.
It’s about what brings the most money for TV.
I think Washington/Miami are both more likely than Colorado.
And they’re arguably the two farthest schools from the soon-to-be 16.
Squeeze every $ out financially.
Travel really doesn’t matter that much at this point.
There is no financial case to be made for Colorado over Washington.
A miniscule travel improvement can’t compare to the bigger market/brand of Washington.
LikeLike
Z33k: “A miniscule travel improvement . . .” Miniscule? Do you understand the difficulty with which Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, etc will have sending their volleyball teams to Washington vs Colorado?
LikeLike
Financially it’s a miniscule difference.
The notion of travel partners and the like really doesn’t matter now when you’re just talking about an extra hour or two in a plane.
Get the schools that generate the best tv value and worry about the rest later.
LikeLike
z33k, the difference between Seattle TV revenue and Denver TV revenue is what is miniscule. There ain’t much difference.
Also bear in mind that Washington’s local rivals – Oregon, OSU and WSU – are all going to hell in a handbasket in the near future while Colorado’s proximity to the Big Ten will save the Buffs from obscurity.
LikeLike
Many of you have Realignment Fever. Colorado has nearly zero chance of getting into the B1. But keep tilting at windmills.
LikeLike
greg: “Many of you have Realignment Fever.”
You are badly confused. None of us have “Realignment Fever”. We have all made clear that nothing will happen until circa 2036 and that any expansion is pretty much limited to a partner for ND.
If you lack the intellect to understand the narrative, you should stifle.
LikeLike
Colin,
All-time W% and W% in the BCS/CFP era (now 24 years) is cherry picking, but looking at just the last 3 years while making schedule excuses isn’t?
Which school has been to the CFP? Which has more national titles? By any reasonable measure, UW is a better CFB brand. They are not roughly equivalent for any normal usage of that term.
“Regarding the travel difference the eastern 14 schools to Seattle vs Denver, Denver is not merely a “marked improvement”, it would reduce trips to the West Coast by almost 50%, all sports considered.”
So? They still have to travel to the Rockies. You talk like CU is in Indiana. And CU also doesn’t have a travel partner, so no convenient doubleheader trips.
“And as I previously mentioned, Colorado already has an archrival in the Big Ten whereas Washington has none.”
CU fans care a lot about that. NE fans care some. Almost nobody else cares at all about that rivalry. It’s not some TV ratings bonanza.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010/11/minuscule-numbers-for-fridays-college/
Speaking of which, Colorado/Nebraska drew an even worse 1.6 overnight, down 16% from the same matchup last year (NEB/COL: 1.9) and down 45% from the same matchup in 2008 (COL/NEB: 2.9).
The 1.6 is easily the lowest overnight of the season for college football on ABC, and also marks the lowest Black Friday overnight on either ABC or CBS dating back to ’04.
Neither game came even close to the 7.5 overnight CBS drew for Auburn/Alabama.
LikeLike
Archie, hardly anybody even in Colorado cares about the Buffs. When they left the Big 12, the people in the Big 12 were told it raised the value, because CU was below the average. UW makes more sense IF the Big 10 wants a western wing and not just an island. UW makes more sense to the broadcasters. UW makes more sense if you want big, full stadiums. The ONLY reasons to take CU over UW would be a) USC/UCLA prefer no west coast competition; and b) Big 10 wants to minimize travel for the 14 existing members.
LikeLike
Colin,
“z33k, the difference between Seattle TV revenue and Denver TV revenue is what is miniscule. There ain’t much difference.”
Give data to back that position up or admit you just made it up. Just the Seattle DMA is 17% larger. In the whole MSA, Seattle is 4.0M to Denver’s 3.0M (33% larger). WA is 7.7M to CO’s 5.8M (33% larger).
“Also bear in mind that Washington’s local rivals – Oregon, OSU and WSU – are all going to hell in a handbasket in the near future while Colorado’s proximity to the Big Ten will save the Buffs from obscurity.”
Why would that help CU? It doesn’t help anyone else that isn’t in the conference. CU’s “local” rivals aren’t local and seem no more likely to thrive than P12 schools.
—
“Z33k: “A miniscule travel improvement . . .” Miniscule? Do you understand the difficulty with which Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, etc will have sending their volleyball teams to Washington vs Colorado?”
Difficulty? You tell the autopilot a different airport and it does most of the work. The athletes just fly longer. At least Seattle is less likely to get snowed in than Denver in winter.
LikeLike
I agree. I tried to leave a “Like” but it did not work.
Of course, I am still assuming that USC and UCLA would have less of a problem with Colorado than Washington.
LikeLike
Washington and Oregon have not won 5 national championships in the last 15 years, so that straw man is irrelevant. If that were the case, I would expect one or both would probably already have been invited. With 5 national titles, Washington/OR would get a nice TV deal for the PAC all by themselves.
Similarly the FSU/UF and Clemson/South Car are also strawmen. FSU is getting invited somewhere rather quickly. I still think that Clemson needs more staying power, but if decisions were made today, Clemson would be in the SEC in a moment.
Washington/Colorado (and Oregon) are totally different. None are inherently getting into the B1G. So decisions would need to be made.
If USC or USC/UCLA really do not want Washington/Oregon in the B1G (which has been reported), it is inconceivable that those conversations did not take place and, if the reports are accurate, are an unwritten part of the deal with the B1G.
Let’s face it, if key ACC schools became available – UNC, FSU, probably UVa, very possibly Miami, and maybe others, would the B1G refuse them in order to take Washington (or Colorado, Oregon)?
The remaining west coast teams are now on a back burner to be a +1 with ND, or brought on if the ACC does not work out for the B1G (or if the B1G goes to 24). Is Stanford higher on the B1G wish list than Wash or Colo? Maybe.
This is all ten years away, at least, let U Washington have a couple of top five finishes and maybe everything changes.
LikeLike
Bernie: “This is all ten years away, at least, let U Washington have a couple of top five finishes and maybe everything changes.”
Ten years from now, after the huge TV contracts for the Big Ten, SEC and ND kick in and that money trickles down into NIL for recruits, I don’t think we’ll ever see another school in the PAC, Big XII or ACC with a top five finish. They’ll all be buried in the G8.
LikeLike
Have you already forgotten about the 2021 season? Look at who was #4 in the CFP rankings.
LikeLike
bullet: “Have you already forgotten about the 2021 season?”
2021 was a half season in which Washington and Colorado did not play. Colorado beat the Huskies the previous year and the following year.
LikeLike
The Big Ten was actively talking to networks about what they would offer for configurations involving Washington and Oregon among others based on the reporting of Dennis Dodd and Brett McMurphy.
There’s no way USC or UCLA would have been promised they’d be the only teams in a certain part of the West.
Washington and Oregon are clearly the next 2 most valuable schools financially remaining in the Pac-12 based on what we’ve heard from Wilner among others whose sources have said the Pac-12 is only viable with those 2.
Everything including tv ratings points to that as well.
But as Dennis Dodd reported, there’s no combination of Pac-12 schools that would be worth current equivalent Big Ten shares.
So if anybody in the Pac-12 is going to come, it likely has to be in a move with somebody else or the Big Ten striking out on other ACC targets but wanting to reach 18 or 20.
I just don’t see how Colorado enters the equation when Washington is better financially.
LikeLike
z33k – none of the North Carolina or Virginia schools are worth equivalent value either. At least UDub & UOregon deliver their states. I think most would agree that UDub & UOregon are easily the most popular football programs in the respective states. UVA is a fairly clear #2 to VA Tech in Virginia. UNC is probably #2 to NC State or barely #1 in a state divided up by seven FBS programs.
Washington (14.1%) is growing at a faster rate than North Carolina (10.7%), while Oregon (10.5%) is growing about as fast as NC. Together, Washington and Oregon (11.9m) exceed the population of North Carolina (10.7m).
I would think UDub and Oregon are a better take than UNC/Duke.
LikeLike
I agree on all of that; it’s just not clear what the Big Ten sees as targets in the Southeast.
The last 2 years changed everything.
Back in 2010-2012, when cable was supreme, the Big Ten would have clearly invited UNC, UVA, Duke, and Ga Tech. That was on the table.
But everything has changed due to the cable bundle weakening. Cable boxes still matter and will likely matter in some fashion, but it’s clear that schools that carry populations and have brands that resonate inside/outside of states matters more.
It’s why I understand Brett McMurphy’s report that the Big Ten was looking at Pac-12 schools and FSU/Miami.
FSU/Miami seemed weird at first given we know the Big Ten invited UVA (and those other 3) 10 years ago, but now it makes sense.
Oregon’s sort of a weird situation because it’s not a research intensive university (regardless of historical AAU status which is likely to be removed soon).
Does that even matter?
Schools like ASU, Miami, VA Tech, and FSU are far better academically/research wise.
I think Washington is likely to enter the Big Ten at some point in the 2030s in a move to 18/20. Hard to say anything else.
Could just be a move like Miami/Washington if other schools are off the table (say FSU/UNC go to the SEC).
A lot can change in 10-12 years so there’s a lot to watch.
Ga Tech and Duke are much less likely to find a landing spot now than they would have been 10-12 years ago.
LikeLike
Z33k: “I just don’t see how Colorado enters the equation when Washington is better financially.”
All costs considered, e.g. total conference travel and lack of a archrival opponent, Washington is far worse financially.
The Big Ten already has two West Coast bastard children to fill the late-night Saturday time void that doesn’t really exist.
Washington and Oregon are N*O*T clearly the next 2 most valuable schools financially remaining in the Pac-12. Washington is slightly ahead of Colorado and Oregon will drop off the charts when its Sugar Daddy goes to his final reward.
LikeLike
Again, costs aren’t the big concern but revenue generation, and CU doesn’t generate enough revenue.
LikeLike
Richard: “Again, costs aren’t the big concern but revenue generation, and CU doesn’t generate enough revenue.”
Washington doesn’t generate enough revenue.
LikeLike
Very likely.
Nobody’s coming unless ND and/or FSU are (in the ’30’s).
ND may require Stanford and Miami and in that situation, UW could the 4th (20th) school added (or it could be Cal or potentially UVa, or heck, FSU if they sign on or even GTech). But in no circumstance would CU be added.
LikeLike
@Richard
I know you don’t agree on UNC, but I think Miami has to be on that list of “can drive expansion schools for the Big Ten”.
Miami has generated good ratings despite being pretty mediocre over the past 2 decades by their standards (was #5 in Staples’ list of non-Big Ten/SEC/ND teams by games generating >1 million; behind Clemson/FSU/Washington/Oregon).
If they’re good, the sky is the limit as far as ratings go. Next couple of years is a key test for them with Cristobal and NIL being favorable to them.
And for the Big Ten at least that’s a new market even running 3rd statewide behind UF/FSU in a fast growth state over 20 million (southern half of Florida having 9 million) and may be the only national power available in the Southeast for football.
LikeLike
Zeek: I definitely believe the B10 wants to be in S FL, but as for TV ratings, being better than most of the mediocrity of the current ACC/B12/Pac is damning with faint praise.
Pretty much none of that lot (with the exception of FSU due to potential) would be wanted by the B10 for purely TV reasons.
If you looked at the link Brian posted, Miami doesn’t overperform their TV slot (pretty much no school that isn’t already in the B10 or SEC do with the exception of FSU).
So the B10 probably would like to add Miami but only if they are paired with another school that is additive or at least breakeven. If FSU goes to the SEC and ND clings stubbornly to their independent-in-name-only status, the B10 is left with a tough decision. It’s possible that the B10 could add Miami with UVa (taking a financial hit) if UVa is available for demographic reasons. If UVa isn’t available, while as a fan, I like the idea of Miami + UW, I’m not sure the B10 would. Note that Stanford and Cal supposedly have more TV value than UW because of the market they’re in. I’d be fine with Miami+Stanford. That may finally induce ND to the B10 as well as we know they want to be in CA and S FL.
LikeLike
The Athletic has an oral history of the Pac-12 Networks on the 10th anniversary of its premier.
https://theathletic.com/3506447/2022/08/15/pac-12-networks-history-larry-scott/
LikeLike
It’s clear a lot of mistakes were made by Scott and the Pac-12.
It’s also not clear they could have avoided the end result of USC/UCLA leaving.
Texas (and Texas A&M) determined that for the Pac-12 when A&M chose the SEC over the Pac-16 first and then Texas went to the SEC last year.
Once the SEC moves were done, USC/UCLA to the Big Ten was the only logical response.
Same is true of the ACC. There’s no cards left to play; all they can do is wait and see what FSU, UNC, Miami, Clemson all choose to do.
LikeLike
Yep, I agree. Scott didn’t have the strongest hand. The Pac pretty much had to add Texas (and OU and A&M) to get to the same level financially as the SEC/B10. Once A&M went to the SEC, all the dominos falling were just a matter of time.
LikeLike
An unofficial condition of the NBC/ND deal for ND to play MI again? Perhaps NBC gets the rights to that game and other B10/ND games as their top picks in their package? Or maybe they get at least 1 of ND@USC or ND@MI? I doubt anyone would fight them for ND@PU.
LikeLike
Makes sense because ND/Michigan was regularly ND’s highest rated game or among their highest rated games.
LikeLike
The thing that confuses me though is how does a 7 year deal with NBC help bring back ND-Michigan when Michigan plays 9 conference games and has home-home scheduled with Texas, OU, Washington during this upcoming deal.
Sounds great for NBC that they want to play but why would Michigan want that when a part of why the series ended is Michigan wanted to play other schools.
LikeLike
I suppose that it’s possible that UMich moves one or both of the Texas/OU HaH to later dates to clear space for ND?
LikeLike
z33k,
With UT and OU moving to the SEC, they may be looking to soften their OOC schedules if the SEC goes to 9 games. OU may want to play OkSU instead. Those discussions might already be going on behind the scenes. This would be a great replacement for MI.
LikeLike
Brian – Texas has Alabama at home this season and away in 23, Michigan at home in 24 and away 27, Ohio State away in 25 and at home in 26, Georgia at home in 28 and away in 29, Florida away in 30 and at home in 31, and Arizona State away in 31 and at home in 32. And the Longhorns owe LSU a home game that got cancelled in 20.
I would think replacing Georgia and Florida are their top priorities.
Oklahoma has the same problem.
At Nebraska this season, v UGA in 23, at Tenn in 24, v Michigan in 25, at Michigan in 26, v LSU in 27, at LSU in 28, v Nebraska in 29, at Nebraska in 30, at Georgia in 31, v Alabama in 32, and at Alabama in 33.
The Sooners’ top priority will be replacing LSU, Georgia & Alabama.
LikeLike
Maybe they can schedule ND too.
LikeLike
The Mich-ND series didn’t end because Mich wanted to play different opponents. ND exercised an option to cancel to make room for the extra games they committed to play vs. the ACC. At the time, Mich and ND were still scheduled many years into the future, but either side could cancel with 3 years’ notice. It was ND that did so.
But as others noted, Michigan would need to cancel future series against other top opponents to get ND back on the schedule as a regular game.
LikeLike
NBC will definitely get ND@USC because Fox will take the OSU-Mich game that week.
LikeLike
1 way NBC could guarantee that they get an ND-B10 game is to stipulate that ND plays its annual Shamrock Series game vs a B10 team. Would have to be a school that is OK with only 6 home games, though. So definitely IU and PU (in Indy?). NU also have a national alumni base. Maybe vs the Domers in TX? RU in Philly or the Meadowlands? UMD in FedEx?
LikeLike
Yeah those types of scheduling things are too complex when the Big Ten hasn’t even sorted out what the Big Ten is going to look like past 2024 in terms of scheduling and that’s a problem that’s imminent given it’s 2 years away.
I understand why NBC and ND would want more Big Ten games on ND’s schedule, to juice the NBC/Big Ten/ND synergy, but that’s sort of tough when they have 5 promised ACC games and the Big Ten is at 9 games and trying to integrate USC and UCLA.
Michigan already has too many major rivalries and is likely to have to play USC and UCLA multiple times during that 7 year deal. Not sure they want to add ND to that mix on top of non-conference they already have scheduled.
As far as the Shamrock Series goes, it depends on whether schools want to give up potential home-home for that. Might make sense for some, but just depends on what it looks like.
LikeLike
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/volleyball/shatel-let-the-nebraska-vs-wisconsin-ultimate-volleyball-fan-showdown-begin/article_97777a6a-1b5c-11ed-b9b0-7323289555d9.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
Omaha World-Herald sports writer Tom Shatel with an interesting thought:
What’s up with the Big Ten TV deal?
We’ve been teased by its arrival since last spring. Then last week we were told ESPN was no longer part of it.
Where is it? Hmmmmm.
Are they waiting on Notre Dame? I thought Notre Dame was waiting to see how rich the Big Ten was going to get?
How about this scenario:
Notre Dame doesn’t join the Big Ten. But ND joins the Big Ten TV package, as NBC continues to do Notre Dame home games and also some ND vs. Big Ten games each year.
That way, Notre Dame still impacts the price of the deal.
What do you think?
LikeLike
wscsuperfan: “What do you think?”
I think I can hear Colin’s head exploding from here.
In truth that probably crosses a line for me. On the one hand, sure, it brings you a little closer and the B10 gets to profit from ND even if they won’t join. Maybe ND will get comfortable being associated and one day join.
Sure, it’s a symbiotic relationship. But it’s little different from the friends with benefits arrangement ND already has with the ACC. After a decade they aren’t chewing at the bit to join them either, so if the B10 is expecting ND to discover the awesomeness of conference affiliation this way then they’re wrong imo.
In the end ND needs the B10’s largesse more than the other way around, and if ND wants part of the B10’s new media deal there’s an easy solution. And it’s not the B10 letting them piggyback the conference’s benefits via deals but thumb their nose at public association. If that costs a little money so be it.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is not going to buy their way out of their ACC commitment to join the B1G unless they are desperate (i.e., broke like MD or UCLA) or shut out of the CFP. Their strong sense of independence and pride won’t allow it. That’s who they are and part of why they are valuable in the first place. They’ll renew with NBC, play a few extra B1G games to make NBC happy, and wait. If the TV and NIL money make the SEC and B1G as strong as expected and the CFB playoffs are too restrictive from ND’s perspective they’ll join the B1G with a plus one that makes sense.
LikeLike
Bob: “They’ll renew with NBC, play a few extra B1G games to make NBC happy”
Another consideration, ND may need to schedule more Big Ten teams simply to have a strength of schedule that is strong enough to qualify for the playoffs, especially after UT and OU join the SEC and USC and UCLA join the Big Ten.
Question: What is Navy, Tennessee State, Central Michigan, Wake Forest, Stanford, Pitt, Duke, Louisville and NC State?
Answer: That is 75% of ND’s schedule in 2023.
LikeLike
Well, the playoff may expand to 16. An undefeated ND won’t miss the CFP no matter who they play.
LikeLike
Answer to question: Yuch.
LikeLike
Yuck indeed. That schedule is an embarrassment.
LikeLike
manifesto: “I think I can hear Colin’s head exploding from here.”
Jeepers, my head is just fine. From Day One my concern was that NBC would low ball the Big Ten in order to get this ND/B1G doubleheader concept off the ground. We still haven’t seen the final numbers but it looks like the Big Ten will be paid more per game that ND receives. I’m fine with that.
I also said that ND was not joining a conference and that the rumors that they were considering it were being circulated to goose NBC into increasing payouts. I was right about that, too.
LikeLike
I don’t think there was a need to be concerned considering that the B10 had plenty of suitors so could always walk away from a low-ball offer.
LikeLike
wscsuperfan,
I view it more as NBC paying the B10 (and Fox) for the chance to broadcast ND@B10 games. That gives them another 1-2 ND games per year with big ratings, and helps them afford to keep ND independent and away from ESPN (which is good for the B10). Perhaps NBC also is writing something into their ND deal about a minimum number of B10 teams they should play on average.
LikeLike
Notre Dame doesn’t join the Big Ten. But ND joins the Big Ten TV package, as NBC continues to do Notre Dame home games and also some ND vs. Big Ten games each year.
That way, Notre Dame still impacts the price of the deal.
So NBC gets to pay more for almost the exact same content? I’m sure they’re excited for that. Most games are scheduled out longer than the seven years the new TV deal will be for so there isn’t much room (if any) for ND to add more Big Ten games.
What do you think?
Shatel is the OWH’s version of Al Yellon.
LikeLike
I have a question for the group. Look at this from a business standpoint. I’ve always believed that ND is very savvy in their business dealings. The conventional wisdom is that ND would take less $$$ to remain Independent.
My question is why? If you’re ultimately going to join a conference, let’s say the BIG. Why would you leave $$$ on the table for 2, 4 or 10 years. Realizing that long term, Independence isn’t sustainable.
LikeLike
Because it provides more time for the hard-core of Irish independence supporters to die off without writing Notre Dame out of their wills. Media is not the only source of money and the traditionalist tend to be older. There is more support among ND alumni to join the B10 than there was 10 years ago, but in another 10 years the support may be overwhelming. So as long as ND does not give up too many $$$ in media rights they are probably maximizing revenue from all sources.
LikeLike
Doug,
Why? Several reasons, some financial and some not:
* Independence is their brand. If they lose it, they become just like MI, UT, etc. That is a huge loss of brand value.
* Football independence is fundamental to their identity. Not as much as being Catholic, but close.
* Many of their alumni (used to be most, now maybe not?) want to stay independent. Their alumni donate tons of money every year (more like tithing than athletic donations). Angering them would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The AD is not separate from the academic side at ND like it is at most schools.
* They don’t really believe they’ll ever need to join a conference. Why would they? Nobody will ever lock them out of a playoff, somebody will always be willing to broadcast their games for a high fee, and someone will always be willing to take their other sports.
LikeLike
Yep, I believe ND is financially savvy too, as seen from their burgeoning endowment. Which is driven by alums who donate. Which means what their alums feel/want matter uber alles. It may take a while for all the old Domer coots who hang on to (essentially fake) independence (in name only) for dear life to die off.
LikeLike
Look at this from a business standpoint. [snip] My question is why
IMO – they feel that independence is their completive advantage. They are not a local or regional school, they have to recruit (students, athletes, donors) nationally and football independence gives them an advantage when doing that.
LikeLike
Mike: “IMO – they feel that independence is their completive advantage.”
They do it for snob appeal. “You conference schools are REGIONAL universities. Notre Dame is a NATIONAL university. You play for the CONFERENCE championship. We play for the NATIONAL championship.”
I’ve attended about 15 ND-Purdue games including four in South Bend. That is their mindset. The five ACC games per year that they are mandated to play are nonetheless considered “independent” due to Orwellian doublethink.
LikeLike
Colin: “You play for the CONFERENCE championship. We play for the NATIONAL championship.”
Just to put my asshole fan hat on for a second: ND has one appearance in a NCG since 1997 (BCS/CFP era), and they got smoked by Alabama 42-14. Which, granted, the 2020 Alabama squad was a buzzsaw in a weird covid year, but that’s also the only data point.
Their only three BCS-NCG/CFP appearances ever were three losses at an average score of 34-10. In fact, they have yet to win a NY6 bowl at all in the 21st Century.
So… no, they don’t play for national championships in football. Or at least they sure don’t win those games. And in every other sport they play for ACC championships, just like the rest of the conference riff-raff.
LikeLike
They do it for snob appeal.
What you call snob appeal, I call a product differentiator. They wouldn’t do it unless it gave them an advantage over their competitors. The more snob appeal the more they can charge for it.
LikeLike
It’ll essentially be only a differentiator only in their mind in the future. If the B10 adds Miami and Stanford, ND would play as national a schedule as they do now (yes, a few more games in the Midwest rather than the Carolinas/VA, but the B10 argually already is a national conference).
LikeLike
Doug: “Why would you leave $$$ on the table for 2, 4 or 10 years. Realizing that long term, Independence isn’t sustainable.”
Piggybacking what Brian said, but it’s mostly because no one can really project the landscape out ten years with any real accuracy. It doesn’t look sustainable to you (or me), but the move to streaming could make it perfectly viable in ten years. Who’s to say. So their thinking is why give up a 100 year identity until they know 100% that they need to. And so far they haven’t.
While I may personally believe they’re faux independent since 2013, that’s still how they’re considered in the media. So long as everyone’s fine to call them that then it’s worth something. I suppose the reason I don’t agree is simply that I’m a B10 alum and not ND.
LikeLike
Three big unanswered questions about the Big Ten Media Deal by Matt Brown.
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/big-ten-espn-fox-cbs-nbc-media-deal-questions/
Will the Big Ten’s new broadcast partners beef up their non-broadcast media operations?
Last week, SI spoke to multiple college sports industry sources who said that the Big Ten’s decision to move away from ESPN is “risky.”
One of those reasons is because ESPN wields power and influence beyond broadcast windows. The College Football Playoff is a 100% ESPN-broadcast operation right now (that’s…not going to be the case for the next Playoff contract), and the network will have partnerships with the SEC, ACC, and almost certainly at least one (if not both) of the Pac-12 and Big 12 in the near future. ESPN+ also coverers nearly every mid-major conference.
But beyond that mass of inventory, ESPN also has a huge newsroom that covers college sports. They have affiliated radio stations all over the country. They have massively popular podcasts. They can promote their college sports brands on NFL broadcasts, on daytime programming, online, on social media…everywhere. ESPN has the capacity to drive the conversation on basically every platform.
FOX and NBC can’t do that the same way ESPN can…or at least, not right now.
…
It is possible that in 2023, the benefits of being able to support broadcast rights with a robust digital and/or radio presence have diminished. Maybe it doesn’t matter that NBC has very little in the way of holistic college football coverage. But I would not be surprised if Fox, CBS, or NBC (or shoot, even Apple, Amazon, or other streaming partners) decided to hire some writers or make strategic investments to support their new multimillion-dollar media rights spend.
What does this mean for college basketball?
Make no mistake about it, Big Ten football inventory is what is driving the bus for these media rights deals. But those aren’t the only broadcasts that have value. ESPN, Fox, and CBS currently carry Big Ten men’s basketball games. The ESPN family of networks typically carries around 80 basketball games a year, including the highly popular Big Ten/ACC Challenge. Big Ten women’s basketball, volleyball, and softball games are occasionally carried on linear networks as well.
[Note: Some have questioned that 80 number, citing a B10 source that says it was 30 last year. Maybe 80 is all sports combined, including away games?]
That’s a lot of inventory, inventory that isn’t likely to be completely swallowed up by Fox since they don’t have the sports inventory space that ESPN does. Will CBS increase the number of games they cover, likely on weekends? Will more basketball inventory get moved to Peacock or other streaming services? Could Fox even sublicense some of the inventory to ESPN?
Technically, the Big Ten/ACC challenge could continue, with Fox (or whoever) owning the rights to the Big Ten home games, and ESPN carrying the ACC home games. But I wouldn’t be shocked if the series simply ends after the current event contract expires, and Fox/CBS/whoever seeks to create their own MTE or conference-wide inventory that they completely control.
At the 11:43 mark, my colleague Bryan Fischer asked Bob Thompson, former president of Fox Sports, about what he thinks the Big Ten will do with basketball rights:
[18:41 YouTube video here discussing B10 deal and its impacts]
In this interview, Thompson says “don’t totally rule out some sort of sublicense deal with ESPN for basketball only.”
What are these schools gonna do with the money?
I am asking this legitimately, not cynically.
…
Some of that money will need to go to paying for increased travel and logistical costs. Schools like UCLA, Maryland, and Rutgers could use that money to pay down institutional debt.
But most Big Ten schools are not heavily relying on student fees or cash-related direct institutional support. Most Big Ten schools already have high-level athletic facilities. Most Big Ten schools already pay high salaries for coaches and high-level staff. It is difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to point to many examples of a sport that a Big Ten school wants to be competitive in, but hasn’t, due to resource investment. This is not the MAC. These schools, yes, even UCLA, were already rich.
Are we to expect that schools will actually save their cash windfall for several years, in anticipation of a world where they need to directly compensate athletes? Do we expect Big Ten schools to finally take baseball investment seriously? To pay competitive salaries for junior athletic department staffers to actually want to stay in their jobs? To start new sport–lol okay there’s no way that’s happening without lawsuits, c’mon.
There are only so many things you can gold plate, so many facilities to build, and so many analysts to hire. Saving the money, or sending it back to central campus, would likely be the most prudent pathway, but when has fiscal responsibility ruled college sports? What’s the plan, the vision, for a world where Big Ten schools suddenly have $30 million more each season?
The cynical answer is that it just gets spent on consultants, head coaches, assistants, and lawyers. That may be what happens.
LikeLike
We’re functionally already at a point where the best way to spend additional revenue is on player recruitment.
And by that I mean revenue sharing/paying players.
A lot of traditionalists won’t like it, but given the Big Ten’s demographic footprint, the best play for the Big Ten is to help professionalize the sport and use revenue sharing as a way of upgrading talent.
There’s plenty of 4-5 stars that go to current ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 teams that could be directed to the Big Ten in that way.
Obviously, SEC can match, but that doesn’t particularly matter much because the top crust of those schools are already loaded with talent.
The Big Ten would likely be the biggest beneficiary of paying players with excess revenue. Schools like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, etc. could easily win recruiting battles against similar schools in the Pac-12/ACC/Big 12 if the financial incentive outweighed the distance.
In turn the whole league would improve.
LikeLike
Outside of OSU, the B10 still isn’t spending money on staff like the SEC powers do. UMich just lost it’s OC to Miami. Wisconsin/Alvarez let Aranda walk because Wisconsin wasn’t willing to pay as much as LSU.
LikeLike
I feel like it’s a different world comparing 2026 money to 2016 money.
Difference is like 150%, comparing $40 million distributions back then to something around $100 million per school.
If Big Ten schools are losing bidding wars at that point, that’s a problem.
I could understand Big Ten schools being stingy back then; the money was tight considering how many sports some of these schools run and that they were only spending 30-40% of their budget on football.
But when the TV money is this big now, that same 30-40% is a lot more money.
LikeLike
In addition, once the B1G TV and other conference distributions reach close to $100 million, nearly all schools will have all that they need for hiring, facilities, etc. (Again it may take a couple more years for RU, UMD and UCLA to catch up).
At that point, the AD could “ask” major donors to give money to NIL groups rather than the school itself. More money to “buy” athletes. While some schools may inherently have sources of lots of NIL funding, many do not – at least not at the level needed.
Ryan Day said that OSU needs $13 million in NIL money to compete. Does OSU have access to that? What if donors to OSU athletics shifted money to NIL groups?
LikeLike
Bernie,
Once the TV deal numbers come out, I’ll be interested to see analysis of how quickly RU and UMD can pay off their debts to the B10 and to their academic sides (as applicable) and start having full, equal funding to their ADs.
I assume RU will use some of the largesse to reduce the student athletic fees after they balance the budget. In a few years, maybe those fees and all subsidies can go away for good.
LikeLike
Rutgers and Maryland owed a combined $145 million as of the end of fiscal year 2021.
They’re full shares members now but with that $145 million being deducted.
Rutgers has said they will finish paying back loans by 2027.
Worth noting though that Maryland borrowed the bulk of the $145 million so Rutgers is probably getting more than Maryland now.
Maryland probably owes back around $100 million given how much more they borrowed to stay whole when dealing with the ACC exit fee and transition to the Big Ten.
Rutgers is basically going to get $6-10 million less for next 5 years and then be done. They’re essentially near full payouts now.
Maryland I believe dated most of their repayments into the next TV deal so it won’t be that punishing.
Just as an example, let’s say they give back $8-10 million in 21-22 and 22-23 under the old tv deals.
Then they can give back $15-20 million for another 4-5 years and be caught up in 2027-2028 like Rutgers.
That’s how I believe it’s dated but unless somebody has the numbers it’s hard to tell. Maryland may have stretched their debt into the 2030s to make it as light as possible per year.
Either way, Rutgers is finally near full earnings power as of 2021 so it’s up to them to make it count. $100 million facilities boost in the NJ budget will help as well.
LikeLike
Okay found this from the Athletic:
“As a result, Rutgers owed $48 million to the league as of 2020, while Maryland owed nearly $120.5 million, per The Athletic.”
So that was $168-169 million in debt as of 2020. Down to $145 million in 2021 means they paid off $24 million that year.
So it is coming down faster than I expected; Maryland is paying off the debt pretty fast at a similar pace to Rutgers.
That means 2021 through early 2023 will be painful for them financially under the old tv deals, but once FY 2023-24 starts their prospects will be considerably brighter.
LikeLike
There are a couple of “hidden” things that do help RU athletics finances going forward.
As I mentioned in a prior message the president of Rutgers from 2012 to 2020 was Robert Barchi and he had absolutely no interest in sports and apparently viewed sports as an annoyance. He was brought in to facilitate the merger of the Newark and New Brunswick medical schools back into Rutgers U, as well as to merge the two law schools, and to make the Newark and Camden campuses into a part of the New Brunswick main campus. He did a fine job of those things, but sports were the bottom priority.
While RU became part of the B1G during his presidency, a lot of things were really messed up, with probably the biggest disaster being the no reason firing of a perfectly good AD, to replace him with a the former assistant AD at Louisville, Julie Hermann. She was hired at the insistence of one member of the RU Board and it was quite open that she was hired because she was a lesbian. That was not hidden, but was Hermann’s main qualification. She was a total disaster in every possible way.
The current AD, Hobbs, is the former Dean of the Seton Hall Law School and he seems to have been doing a good job. His one hiccup was that he did not want to rehire Greg Schiano, when no one else even wanted the job. The pro Schiano fan reaction became so strong that it became clear that Hobbs needed to hire Schiano or resign as AD. The hiring took place.
Anyway the new president, Holloway, played football at Stanford and came from Northwestern, so he understands and likes sports. That has to be relevant to the pledge from the State of NJ for $100 million for facilities.
Most B1G schools probably have pretty much all the updated facilities that they need. When joining the B1G, Rutgers basically started from scratch. There were almost no practice facilities and what they had were shared by multiple teams. That has not been totally cured, but they are working on it. It is tough to recruit when you tell your soccer players that the men, women, and a couple of other teams all need to share the same indoor practice area in inclement weather.
https://www.onthebanks.com/2020/6/30/21308163/the-athletic-legacy-of-rutgers-president-dr-robert-barchi-big-ten-rwjbarnabas
Another factor was that there was a very vocal part of the faculty, as I recall “The Group of 100”. They were adamant that Rutgers should drop big time sports and go back to scheduling Lehigh, Lafayette, etc. While they could not shut down sports, they did have an impact. They seem to have disappeared recently.
The newspapers in NJ still constantly whine when money is spent on sports, but that may change some day.
When RU announced membership in the B1G, it really was a huge deal throughout NJ. Huge numbers of Rutgers stickers and Scarlet Rs suddenly appeared on cars all over the state.
LikeLike
Rutgers is in a good spot now and Holloway is the right leader there.
Now that they’re only a few million off from Big Ten payouts (seeing mid-40s/low 50s millions), they’re finally seeing the money come in; along with facilities renovations things are coming along well. Once this NJ budget money comes in for facilities and the Big Ten payouts go up to the $90-100 million range pretty soon; all the financial issues should be fixed.
Rutgers is competing at a NCAA tournament level in a lot of sports outside of football: men’s/women’s basketball have both been excellent; lacrosse, field hockey, soccer as well.
Football’s the last piece of the puzzle and I think they’ll be fine once the divisons go away next year and the schedules aren’t as stacked.
Same applies to Maryland which has been recruiting well but just the weight of Ohio State/Michigan/Michigan State/Penn State every year is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Did the Group of 100 appear before or after the B10 invite? With the large student funded subsidies at Rutgers this would have been valid after the Big East split. If VA had accepted a B10 invite Rutgers would not have received one. There are always a small number of faculty that does not like sports — if they were advocating the refusal of the B10 invite, etc. than they fall in that group. The invite should have decimated the faculty numbers wanting to go small.
LikeLike
The Group of 100 was around at RU for literally decades. Even when RU joined the Big East, they were against that. When the offer from the B1G came, the response was so overwhelmingly positive, that if they said anything negative it was a whisper lost in the roar of the ocean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting visualization of the realignment and polarization of college football fans in the power 2. Not sure about the methodology and there are a couple odd balls (Syracuse a top 16 fanbase?), but the Big 12 over time is particularly interesting.
The Big 12 graph in particular which shows a loss of 58% of its original fanbase.
LikeLike
More information here. This data is prior to UCLA/USC moving to the B1G but does include OU and Texas in the SEC.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MiUOwx8X3H2bSkUOz8a1YhceyJWLLCoJ/view
LikeLike
I’ll be honest. I am highly suspect of these results. Syracuse at 15? Ohio State with almost twice the fanbase of Michigan? Oregon ahead of Alabama? I just don’t buy some of these results. I think more explanation is needed to explain how they synthesized those other results. It’s probably also important for these types of analyses to report their limitations, which they rarely seem to do.
LikeLike
If Syracuse is between A&M and Auburn then I demand that Purdue be placed between Penn State and Michigan.
LikeLike
Basic problem is the NYT538 data uses surveys and multiplies by market size.
For a lot of schools it works like Ohio State or Texas, but for a lot of schools you get bad numbers.
Georgia Tech was the most popular team in Georgia based on their first attempt at this, which obviously wasn’t true but because of Atlanta the multiple factor was too big.
Syracuse is too high because of that.
LikeLike
Are you saying that you do not believe that Syracuse has the largest fan base in the ACC and that Cuse has a larger fan base than Texas?
Syracuse has a small fan base in a tiny market. It is the 87th biggest TV market. Cuse has a worldwide total of 250,000 alumni, which would probably be one of the two or three smallest in the B1G. Northwestern may have fewer, but I do not know what other school would.
Syracuse gets credit for the NYC market and that is how they are the most popular ACC team.
Cuse claims 53,000 alumni in the Metro New York region. That is 53,000 in an area of between 10 and 20 million people, depending on what the NY Metro area means to them.
https://nyc.syr.edu/alumni/index.html
Rutgers has more than 40,000 students and hundreds of thousands of alumni in the same region. Not hard to see why RU is the most popular team in NYC and the area and Cuse is number 6 or so, behind ND, Michigan, Penn State and another school or two.
LikeLike
Oops Cuse bigger than Tennessee and Auburn, not Texas
LikeLike
You don’t have to count NYC within Syracuse’s market. Upstate NY has 6mm people and there are no major league pro teams or other FBS schools between Buffalo on the far western edge and NYC on the far SE corner of the state. Granted, half of that population is in Western NYS but 3mm is still the same population as Iowa and more than NE.
Syracuse’s biggest problem is that upstate NY has as much football talent as Alaska.
LikeLike
NYC is counted in their Syracuse metrics. Cuse is “credited” with more than 7 million TV households. Obviously not from upstate. That has appeared here in other postings where the 7 million plus Syracuse TV market is used to establish the ACC total market of, as I recall, may have been 28 million TV homes.
That is also why Syracuse is listed as the most popular ACC school, ahead of FSU, which gets great TV ratings, Clemson which is for the moment at least, a king, NC, Duke, etc.
While not directly germane, there is also no reason to believe that people in far northern and northwestern NY have an interest in Syracuse sports, unless they have a Jimmy Brown or make the basketball final four. That is why I would think that they are not really part of the Syracuse market.
LikeLike
Are the studies differentiating between football and MBB or just lumping everything together?
OSU does bring more TV viewers than any other program these days (even more than UMich and Bama; ND, Texas, etc.)
Bama games get outsized viewership because Saban (and their local recruiting ground) has been so good. They get the viewership they do because the Tide is always in the national title hunt. I wonder what Bama’s viewer base would be like if they were merely only as good as UO has been.
LikeLike
The University of California Board of Regents is holding a meeting today in regards to UCLA’s move to the Big Ten. They say in the meeting, that USC comprised 30 percent of the TV value of the Pac-12’s media contract…..UCLA was 10 percent.
LikeLike
I am not sure 10% is accurate but it helps serve the purpose if the BOR wants UCLA to compensate Berkeley. UCLA would only have to pay them maybe $5 million since their value would be 10% of the estimated $500 million media deal. USC is gone either way.
LikeLike
Kevin,
I assume UC is framing this as how much value was lost with USC leaving, then how much more value was lost with UCLA also leaving.
USC has much more value in CFB (only king in P12):
* Only king in the P12, so plays in all king-king, king-prince and king-other games
* Hosts half of all the ND games in the P12 TV package
* Hosts half of all the P12 games in LA
* Averaged 1.98M people over 2015-2019 to UCLA’s 1.25M (similar to MSU vs IU)
I estimated it at $150M vs $50M, so seeing 30%/10% doesn’t shock me.
If you take the estimate of P12 = $500M, USC + UCLA = $200M:
P12 payout = $500M / 12 = $41.7M
P10 payout = $300M / 10 = $30.0M
Cal’s loss = $11.7M
UCLA’s portion = $2.9M
If the new P12 payout is only $25M:
P10 = $25M * 10 = $250M
P12 = $250M / (60%) = $417M
P12 payout = $34.7M
Cal’s loss = $9.7M
UCLA’s portion = $2.4M
UCLA could easily agree to keep playing Cal annually, and even to give them $2.5-3M per year if necessary.
LikeLike
Brian – those were my thoughts but couldn’t type all the math on my phone. I used the $5million number just to round up significantly.
I did watch the regents meeting. Most have very little knowledge of college sports. The big takeaway is that they really wanted more focus or procedure change so that the BOR is involved in these decisions going forward. Some regents even wanted to explore full authority and remove delegated authority for such matters. Mostly a power battle.
LikeLike
The BOR request for involvement is another dumb governmental action with potentially horrible results and little to no upside. How could any college make a possible realignment change that public?
The B1G could never have agreed to have a public discussion prior to realignment and honestly I would imagine neither would USC. I think that if this was in place before, the deal would have been USC – Stanford or even USC alone.
Then there would be two Univ of Cal branches in trouble instead of just Berkeley.
LikeLike
The UC president’s report to the board of regents about UCLA’s move is due today, and presumably the basis for the meeting. I’ll be curious to see the public version of the report.
LikeLike
Gov. Newsom didn’t bother to attend, which tells you how important this really was to him.
LikeLike
So UCLA, Cal (and Stanford?) about the same value. I bet UW is too. UO less. Other 6 Pac schools average a little over $20mm in value each.
LikeLike
Thompson’s estimates were:
P12 = $500M
USC + UCLA = $200M ($150M + $50M)
Cal + Stanford = $90M ($45M each)
UW + UO = $60M ($30M each)
Other 6 = $150M ($25M each on average)
I’d guess ASU should be around $30M for Phoenix. CU and UU should be around $27.5M each. UA is maybe $25M. OrSU and WSU are probably $20M each (small markets, small brands). I’m not sure his math is super accurate.
LikeLike
https://nypost.com/podcasts/marchand-ourand-sports-media/
This week’s episode of The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast is about the future of sports media (what will things look like in 2025). Interesting discussion about streaming, in particular.
The year is 2025. Who will be the biggest players – and biggest losers – in sports media? One of the country’s top analysts, MoffettNathanson’s Michael Nathanson, joins Andrew Marchand and John Ourand to talk about the changes they expect to see in the business over the next three years.
Topics include the coming battle for NBA rights and why they are so important to Warner Bros. Discovery; the case against streaming; and what will happen to sports teams’ local media rights. Nathanson talks about the strength of the cable bundle and what networks could do to hurt it. And the trio gives their analysis on the differing sports strategies of Amazon versus Apple, who could buy Fox and when will ESPN offer its main channel direct-to-consumer.
LikeLike
The College Football Playoff’s Board of Managers, comprised of 10 presidents and chancellors representing each FBS conference, along with the president of Notre Dame (this is not the CFP Management Committee) had a brief discussion Monday about breaking major college football away from the NCAA governance structure.
The group also talked about changing the format of the current playoff before the end of the current contract in 2026, realizing they are likely leaving tons of money on the table by not expanding, perhaps as much as $500 million.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34414293/college-football-playoff-board-discusses-possibility-potential-restructuring-how-college-football-governed-sources-say
LikeLike
We have more in depth discussions on this blog than the UC Regents had today.
Just completely worthless.
At most they might make UCLA transfer a couple million over to Berkeley for a period of time.
Doesn’t sound at all like they’d try to revoke it but maybe I’m misunderstanding here.
LikeLike
CFP board discussing taking over CFB, and getting an expanded CFP before the current deal ends. I’m curious to see ESPN’s response to being asked to share when they are currently in an exclusive deal.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34414293/college-football-playoff-board-discusses-possibility-potential-restructuring-how-college-football-governed-sources-say
The 11 college presidents and chancellors who make up the College Football Playoff’s Board of Managers met via Zoom on Monday and began a discussion that could reshape the future of college sports, sources told ESPN.
Multiple sources told ESPN that the Board of Managers briefly discussed the possibility of restructuring how college football is governed, with the idea presented of major college football potentially being governed outside of the NCAA. The most logical place for the sport to be run outside of the NCAA would be under the auspices of the CFP, which was discussed on the call. The CFP currently oversees the sport’s postseason playoff and has contractual ties to other marquee postseason bowl games.
Sources cautioned that these discussions are in such early stages that it could be considered the first steps of a complicated process that would resemble a marathon. The sources added that the group spoke about the idea for only about five minutes, as it was raised as something the group should think more about down the line.
The conversation is significant, however, in that it’s the first known discussion among a group that would seemingly have the power to put such a plan in action. And the CFP looms as the most likely destination for running major college football outside the NCAA.
…
One other item discussed on the call was the notion that the next iteration of the College Football Playoff — whatever that would look like — could be put into place before the end of the current CFP contract. That contract has four seasons remaining and runs out after the 2025 season.
A source told ESPN that the general feel among the presidents and chancellors on the call was that the college sports leaders have left too much money on the table by not implementing a new playoff before 2026, perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars. Much of the obstruction to the 12-team playoff appears to have dissipated, as media day comments from multiple leaders revealed some of the obstacles now appear to have been more performative than grounded in reality.
While there’s still a lot of work to be done — including an agreement on a format — the door remains open for discussion of finding a new deal that could potentially be put in place for the final two seasons of the contract. That idea was perpetuated by Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff at Pac-12 media days in late July.
LikeLike
By golly, didn’t someone on this forum done say that already?
https://thegame730am.com/the-big-ten-shot-itself-in-the-foot-in-its-pursuit-of-notre-dame/
LikeLike
That line of thinking assumes ND would give up independence at this stage when their 5 game ACC deal is viable through 2036.
The 2030s realignment will be the first time in 100 years that ND is really on the table.
Why? They were never going to join an 11 team Big Ten with no coastal presence in the late 90s.
They’re not going to join a 16 team Big Ten while independence is still viable and there’s still marquee brands in the ACC.
Fast forward to the 2030s. Remove Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, UW, UO from the ACC and Pac-12.
Turn the Big Ten into a national conference with schools in the Southeast and Pacific NW.
Every Big Ten school will then have access to much better national schedules than ND.
That’s when ND will actually consider the Big Ten.
This is a long game. Big Ten needs to just focus on maximizing payouts for the next 13 years for now. Early 2030s is when everything changes.
ND will join the Big Ten after both Big Ten and SEC are at 18-20.
LikeLike
z33k: “That’s when ND will actually consider the Big Ten.”
ND isn’t joining a conference. Period.
LikeLike
It’s easy to say now, but I can foresee a situation in 15-20 years where independence isn’t viable.
Big Ten will consider moving to 10 conference games when it gets to 18-20.
There will be very few marquee brands that bring TV ratings outside the Big Ten and SEC.
They will fall behind in TV money if they keep trying to see schedules with 7-9 G5 teams.
Everybody just has to relax about ND and focus on ACC realignment for now.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree that ND isn’t worth debating now, though I doubt the B10 or SEC will go to 10 conference games even with 18 or 20 schools. For one, Iowa definitely would object and many other schools also want to keep a OOC game that they play HaH (PSU would want to schedule other Eastern schools outside the B10; OSU and UMich want to schedule a marquee OOC opponent each year) yet have 7 home games.
You could still play every school at least once every 3 years (which is in effect what happens now in some cases in the B10) even with a larger league. With 18 teams, 5 games locked annually and the other 12 every 3 years. With 20 teams, 4 games locked annually and the other 15 every 3 years. With 22, 3 locked opponents and the other 18 every 3 years.
The B10 probably won’t expand to 24.
But ND may decide to join the B10 with locked games vs Stanford and Miami (also USC and maybe UMich) (+UVa/Cal/UW as the 4th team; or FSU if the B10 somehow gets the Noles). Without Miami and FSU in the ACC, playing the ACC a bunch becomes much less attractive to the Domers (in that scenario, who knows what will happen; does ND really relish playing 5 games vs the B12 in order to park their non-revenue sports in that league)? In that case, they do get to visit TX a bunch, though HaH vs UH/Baylor/TTech might not be what Domers who want independence envision (nor also visting the Great Plains a bunch).
What will be really interesting is if the B10 and SEC split up FSU, Miami, UNC, and UVa between them. The ACC could still survive. They would want to add WVU and UCF in that scenario and those schools _might_ join. What will ND do in that case? I’m pretty certain they’d want visits to FL or TX. Would the stronger teams in the B12, ACC, and Pac band together?
LikeLike
@Richard
There’s a contingent of ND fans who are probably not happy about the falling quality of ND’s schedules.
You see it more on their online forums than anywhere else (and I’m extremely hesitant to read much more into it than that), but there’s a contingent there that’s already saying “just get it over with and join the Big Ten with a bunch of other teams on both coasts”.
This is coming from the most anti-Big Ten group of folks out there, but even they can see where this is potentially heading.
Independence only works so long as the schedule sells. Without FSU, Clemson, Miami, how well does that ACC schedule sell?
LikeLike
For 18 teams:
9 = 3 * 100% + 8 * 50% + 6 * 33%
The most distant teams could be played 1/3 of the time (for the coastal schools) and closer schools 1/2 of the time, while still keeping 3 rivals. Or geographically zipper into 50% and 33% groups.
LikeLike
Did you bother to scroll down and see the other crap this guy wrote? It’s garbage. Farther down he listed some B10 expansion candidates as KU, KSU, ISU, UC, TAMU, and OkSU (and don’t forget Memphis).
Many speculated that the Big Ten gaining a mutual business partner with Notre Dame would help the league in luring the Fighting Irish into its ranks. But actually, the Big Ten’s pursuit of Notre Dame has ironically secured the school’s football independence for many more years.
“Many” can speculate anything they want. That doesn’t mean they were correct. The B10 was chasing money and exposure.
Sports Business Journal reports that Notre Dame’s next deal with NBC will pay more in part because the Irish and the Big Ten can work together through the network to schedule better games. That could drastically improve the quality of Notre Dame’s home slate by way of higher-profile opponents and, consequently, greater viewership.
1. “Could” work together is very different from a contractual obligation. Let’s see the actual deals.
2. More ND games would improve the B10 slate and could get more $$$ from NBC for the B10.
3. Plenty of B10 teams already schedule ND. I doubt that will change a whole lot, especially while ND has the ACC deal for 5 games.
For example, NBC will broadcast Notre Dame home contests in 2022 that feature lackluster visitors like Marshall, Cal, Stanford, UNLV, and Boston College. Imagine if two of those were replaced by the likes of Michigan and Michigan State, both of whom are historic rivals of Notre Dame that command far greater attention and interest.
BC is an ACC game, so the B10 can’t replace it. The Stanford series gets ND into SF, so only UCLA could possibly replace that game. Cal does the same, and can also only get replaced by UCLA. Marshall and UNLV are buy games, and the B10 isn’t likely to offer ND many of those (certainly not MSU or MI).
LikeLike
It is a huge mistake for the UC BoR to involve itself in athletics, which is not in anyway its purview. If they start down this road, soon they will involve themselves in broadcast rights negotiations. Moreover, they will have to involve themselves in athletic conference structure and membership. They are totally unprepared, have not the authority, and have not the bureaucratic resources to do this.
If they do intervene, they will wreck UCLA athletics, and Stanford might replace UCLA in the B1G.
California is the most egregiously misgoverned state in the Union, so the likelihood the BoR will screw the pooch is quite high.
LikeLike
Bob: “California is the most egregiously misgoverned state in the Union, so the likelihood the BoR will screw the pooch is quite high.”
The University of California’s BoR are 18 political appointees handed out by the governor. Little more than a political boon given to the governor’s benefactors to curry favor. That said, that’s the case at many other state universities.
Given who gets these appointments, and the egos that come with them, it isn’t shocking they want to butt their nose in where it doesn’t belong. But, again, being California doesn’t make that unique.
The idea that
LikeLike
PS. The inestimable Flugaur has a tweet claiming that Stanford, Oregon, and Washington are still in play, and that is why the new TV contracts have not been finalized.
I would normally be skeptical, but he points out Warren’s repeated comments about his and the B1G’s concern for the welfare of student athletes and the stresses of long distance travel on them make it probable that more west coast teams will be admitted.
I think the B1G’s presidents and AD’s are serious about that, and west coast travel partners for USC and UCLA are necessary for them. I also think that the B1G presidents are willing to take “losses” to protect the students, so each additional school does not have to bring in its full share of additional TV revenue. They are simply not that mercenary.
LikeLike
Bob,
Presidents and ADs have been claiming to care about athlete wellbeing for decades, but their actions almost never correspond.
Adding more west coast schools significantly increases travel for the current 14 members in order to to reduce it for the LA schools, and it reduces the payout at the same time. It spreads the travel burden more equally, but it greatly increases the total travel burden. That’s the opposite of helping athlete wellbeing.
The LA schools already play roughly 70% of their games in any sport at home (home OOC games included). Plus they can often play across town for one road game/trip. So that means all of 3-4 long trips at most? B10 baseball teams often play their first month on the road in the south. And most sports only play on weekends, often at invitationals, so we’re really only worried about a few sports. And revenue sport athletes (and some others) often take a reduced course load during competition season.
By adding western schools, the LA schools still have to fly to all but maybe the SF schools. But now all the ET and CT schools have to take western trips. So that’s 14 more schools adding cross-country trips.
It makes more sense to do smart scheduling and help cover travel and support costs (trainers, tutors, classrooms, etc.).
LikeLike
Agree with Brian here.
Some of those schools have some pluses (the Bay Area has a ton of B10 alums and Seattle too) but neither UO or UW would actually help out the travel of the LA schools that much and would be more onerous for the original 14 B10 schools.
LikeLike
Finally
LikeLike
The article has a link to the UC report. I didn’t bother to include the bit about how much UCLA leaving would hurt Cal since we’ve covered that elsewhere.
The board didn’t take any action that would block the Bruins’ departure in 2024, but after discussing an interim report on the predicted multi-million-dollar impact of the move, the regents talked through a potential policy change that could limit campuses’ ability to make major decisions involving athletics contracts without additional oversight.
…
Newsom wasn’t at the meeting, but regents considered putting limits on the UC president’s ability to delegate decision-making authority to campuses on certain athletics issues: If situations represent a “material adverse impact to other UC campuses”; if they “raise a significant question of university policy,” or if they create “significant risk or reputational harm to any campus or to the university.”
…
Since 1991, the Office of the President has delegated authority to chancellors to execute certain agreements – including intercollegiate athletic agreements. But chancellors, whose priority is promoting the overall welfare of their campuses, are often not best positioned to consider the university-wide perspective because of the inherent conflicts of interest, according to the report.
So the report also proposed requiring university presidents to alert the board chair and chair of the committee with jurisdiction on major athletics decisions so they can decide whether the matter should go before the full board for discussion.
“It assures the system-wide perspective that I think people were concerned about, and looking at the potential impacts not only on specific campuses, but all the campuses across the system,” said Charles F. Robinson, UC’s general counsel. “But it also then allows some flexibility for the regents to decide in a specific case whether or not they believe that oversight is better exercised at the regents’ level.”
…
The report also offered a glance at what the conference switch will mean for UCLA’s athletes, who, as a part of the Big Ten, will be playing most of their conference road games farther away, between 1,500 and 2,700 miles from L.A.
Currently, only three of UCLA’s 25 teams – football and men’s and women’s basketball – use chartered flights to get to competitions. But eight other UCLA teams (and their 175 student-athletes) who will compete in the Big Ten now fly commercially for their two to five conference-related away trips each year.
Women’s soccer, for example, stands to spend about 15 additional hours per season traveling, said Pamela Brown, the vice president for UC’s Institutional Research and Academic Planning. She noted that at least one other team would likely see its total travel hours increase by 24 hours.
Even so, those preparing the report got positive feedback from UCLA’s student-athletes, some of whose sports might have been in jeopardy because of the athletic department’s reported $102.8 million debt.
In the Big Ten, the Bruins are expected to double their annual media rights revenue by receiving as much as $90 million annually in distributions, funding that could provide Bruins athletes with additional resources, such as, say, academic support on the road – something the athletes surveyed said they hoped for.
“In addition, being able to play against Big Ten schools could increase opportunities for tournament play and bowl games,” Brown added, passing along the feedback. “And there could be some increased visibility which could improve student athlete name, image likeness opportunities and also improve recruiting that could help student athletes play with other top players and improve the team rankings.”
LikeLike
Click to access b1attach.pdf
Here’s the report. Pages 11-13 have the travel analysis for UCLA.
Fourteen of UCLA’s 25 teams – about 373 students – do not compete in structured conference competition or compete usually in multi-team events and tournaments, and therefore would have minimal or no increase in travel: Women’s Beach Volleyball, Men’s and Women’s Golf, Men’s Volleyball, Men’s and Women’s Cross Country, Indoor Track & Field and Outdoor Track & Field, Women’s Rowing, Women’s Swimming & Diving, Men’s and Women’s Water Polo. Of these 14, four are sports not sponsored by the Big Ten, and would thus maintain existing schedules.
Three of UCLA’s 25 teams currently utilize chartered flights for competitions: Women’s Basketball, Men’s Basketball, and Football (155 students). These teams currently have five or six conference away trips each season. These would see increased flight times of one to three hours each way and time zone changes that may warrant an extra night away from campus on certain occasions.
The remaining eight UCLA teams (175 students) are: Men’s Baseball, Men’s and Women’s Soccer, Men’s and Women’s Tennis, Women’s Softball, Women’s Gymnastics, and Women’s Volleyball. Currently, these teams take two to five conference-related away trips each year. They currently may also travel for
non-conference competition to the Midwest, South, and East Coast once or twice per season. As members of the Big Ten, some non-conference competitions could instead take place in California, reducing travel time. Year-over-year projected travel time increases would be the difference in travel to conference away games in the Midwest compared to the Mountain/Pacific West. In cases where the travel requirements present a significant burden, charter flights or other conference alignments are of course possible. As noted earlier, current UC teams compete in at least two and as many as seven conferences per campus.
Over half of their athletes are not impacted.
The revenue sports charter flights and often play on weekends, which reduces the impact.
The other 8 teams take 2-5 conference trips each, but they can replace some OOC trips with west coast teams now to reduce travel. Smart scheduling can reduce the impacts for them, or they can join a western conference and stay local.
Remember that these teams were already flying all around the west coast and mountain region, and often going cross-country for OOC trips.
LikeLike
Yep, travel really is a red herring. There’s no reason why the LA schools can’t visit 2 schools on each trip east during a long weekend for the non-revenue sports (or even MBB). The spread-out Pac already utilizes travel pairs a bunch and it’s pretty easy to form travel pairs in the B10.
LikeLike
Exactly. Zippering gives many easy pairs:
MI/MSU – 64 miles
IU/PU – 116
NW/IL – 155
RU/UMD – 215
WI/MN – 273
NE/IA – 301
OSU/PSU – 322
All of those could be bus rides, certainly the first 4.
Or switch to these pairs to shorten 1 trip at the expense of having to fly for the other:
WI/IA – 176
NE/MN – 435
P12 pairs:
Cal/Stanford – 31 miles
UO/OrSU – 50 (similar to 1 B10 pair)
UA/ASU – 116 (same as 1 B10 pair)
UW/WSU – 292 (similar to the 3 longest of the B10 pairs)
UU/CU – 514 (much longer than any B10 pair)
LikeLike
Pretty much tells us travel won’t be a major factor moving forwards, between changing non-conference schedules (removing far away trips) and adding charter flights for the teams that do need to fly multiple times far away, that does a fair bit to mitigate the travel issue.
The key thing is conference revenues and which schools can drive it most.
We’re really talking about schools like Oregon and Washington as “travel partners” to USC/UCLA when in reality the main thing they do mitigate is the jet lag/time zone change effect for whenever those teams would be playing.
I still think the Big Ten will add 2 schools out West eventually, and that they’re likely to be Washington + Stanford, but I don’t see it until the mid-2030s. Could happen sooner, but just think you focus on the ACC first and that means FSU, Miami, UNC, and maybe UVa/Va Tech.
LikeLike
Yep, it will be in the 2030’s.
I think we are mostly in agreement that the B10 would add ND and FSU if possible and probably Miami if the Canes are simply not dilutive for demographic/recruiting reasons. ND would almost certainly demand Stanford (dilutive but also has strong pluses in all other aspects). Whether a 2nd Western school (Cal or UW) get added will depend on whether an even number team is needed (and whether the B10 wants/gets either or both or none of UVa and UNC).
I could see ND demanding Stanford and Miami and then if the B10 loses out on FSU, UVa, and UNC, adding Cal. ND is such a huge addition that they’ll be able to pay for adding all those other 3 schools.
LikeLike
I think for ND, if they were ever in the Big Ten; 3 locked rivalries with USC, Stanford, and Miami would probably be the best they could get.
6 games rotating through Midwest/Mid-Atlantic for the most part (and Washington/UCLA).
That would give them the national exposure they want with locked rivalries against the 3 most prominent privates in Cali/FL.
LikeLike
I believe B1G policy is that all of a member’s team compete in the B1G, unless there aren’t enough conference teams to do so. At least six schools must offer that sport. So, I think all the UCLA teams will compete in the B1G.
LikeLike
That’s been true, but they might relax that rule for the LA schools for some minor sports to save on travel.
Does rowing need to be in the B10? That’s a lot of equipment to ship for a sport based on a few invitationals anyway.
LikeLike
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big-ten-historic-media-rights-deal-expansion?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=BrettMcMurphy
“Regardless of whether Notre Dame joins the Big Ten or remains independent, the league still wants to add more Pac-12 schools to help reduce potential travel concerns for USC and UCLA, sources said.
On Thursday, the Big Ten announced its media rights agreement, which includes splitting its football conference championship games between Fox (2023, 2025, 2027 and 2029), CBS (2024 and 2028) and NBC (2026).
In 2023-24, the league’s schools will receive the same conference distribution as they did in 2022-23 (nearly $60 million per school). The league’s payouts will increase slightly in Year 2 (2024-25) before drastically increasing the final five years of the deal from 2025-30, growing to about $100 million per school, including revenue from the College Football Playoff, bowl games and the NCAA Basketball Tournament.”
Contract is backloaded and escalates dramatically the year after USC/UCLA enter.
Also the championship game rotating is interesting as is the notion of wanting additional Pac-12 schools.
LikeLike
Basketball situation here: “All of the Big Ten’s network partners, with the exception of NBC, will televise Big Ten men’s basketball games. The majority will be on the Big Ten Network (126 men’s basketball games) followed by Fox and FS1 (45 games), Peacock (32-to-47 games) and CBS (9-to-15 games).”
LikeLike
Lots of women’s basketball too: Some games on Fox, the B1G tourney final on CBS, 30 games (20 in conference) on Peacock and at least 49 on BTN.
LikeLike
” . . . the league still wants to add more Pac-12 schools to help reduce potential travel concerns for USC and UCLA . . .”
Isn’t this a death sentence for the Pac-10?
LikeLike
Hard to know, may just be a debate about who to add and when…
That’s the biggest issue I’d imagine.
LikeLike
Paywall article from Wall Street Journal:
Big Ten Strikes Massive $7.5 Billion Deal for TV Rights
The conference’s partnership with Fox, CBS and NBC represents an NFL-style approach to spreading its content across multiple platforms
The Big Ten on Thursday struck a massive new seven-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC that people familiar with the matter said is worth up to approximately $7.5 billion, catapulting the conference to the front of a cash-driven race for domination among a dwindling number of top college conferences.
The Big Ten’s contract is the latest landmark in an era in which the surging value of college football’s broadcast rights have redefined and reshaped the sport. Whereas a group of five top athletic conferences recently ruled college football’s airwaves, that number has narrowed to two: the Big Ten and the Southeastern Conference.
The Big Ten has separated itself from other leagues in part by expanding the geographic reach of the conference to add one of the nation’s top media markets. Less than two months ago, the Big Ten announced it had landed Southern California and UCLA as future members, shocking the sports world by expanding the Midwest-based conference to the West Coast and driving up the bidding to telecast Big Ten games.
The SEC did something similar last year, announcing it was adding football behemoths Texas and Oklahoma by 2025. In 2024, when the SEC’s new deal with Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN takes effect, the conference will generate more than $800 million annually in media rights, according to a person familiar with the matter. That number stands to increase again after the new teams join.
The Big Ten and SEC each will have 16 member schools once their current expansion plans take effect. The conferences’ growing size and star power—with most of the most-watched football teams among them—are further separating them from their competitors.
The Atlantic Coast Conference’s media revenue from ESPN and ACC Network was $397 million in 2020-21, according to federal tax records. The Pac-12 and Big 12 Conferences are even further behind and their current contracts do not expire until 2024 and 2025, respectively.
The Big Ten deal comes two years after Kevin Warren, a longtime former executive with the Minnesota Vikings, took over as commissioner, and it reflects a more NFL-like approach by spreading Big Ten football and basketball games among several media partners instead of one or two: three major networks and NBC’s streaming platform, Peacock, plus the Big Ten Network. It’s a contrast to the SEC’s new deal, which will put all of its premium football games on Disney-owned properties and relies heavily on cable through ESPN’s channels.
“I believe in the power of our network television partners, but it has a nice balance of direct to consumer delivery of inventory in the deal,” Warren said in an interview on Thursday. “There’s even a higher degree of cross marketing. When you look at the other properties that Fox, CBS [and] NBC have, those are all the biggest events.”
This new deal marks a fresh chapter in the longstanding relationship between the Fox Corp.’s Fox Sports and the Big Ten, one that began in 2007 when the Big Ten Network became the first conference-specific television platform in a joint partnership with Fox. In addition to upping its 51% stake in the Big Ten Network to 61% in 2021, Fox was heavily involved in the bidding process as the conference looked to make a new deal, going so far as to have network representatives in the room listening to pitches from rivals alongside Warren.
Fox once again will broadcast premium games during the noon window. The network averaged 5.7 million viewers across 14 games in 2021, 10 of which included Big Ten teams. Including the midday slot, Fox and FS1 will air between 24 and 27 Big Ten games in 2023 and increase their allotment to up to 32 conference games in 2024.
“We are proud to expand upon our longstanding partnership with the Big Ten Conference and further bolster our position as the premier rights holder of the conference,” said FOX Sports chief executive officer and executive producer, Eric Shanks. Fox Sports’ owner Fox Corp. and The Wall Street Journal parent company News Corp share common ownership.
Under the new deal, the Big Ten’s package of football games will stretch from midday to nearly midnight on Saturdays. Beginning in 2023, Fox will air the top game of the week at noon Eastern time, followed by a CBS game at 3:30 p.m. ET. NBC will carry the nightcap in prime time and plans to style the broadcast, dubbed “Big Ten Saturday Night,” after its wildly popular Sunday Night Football telecast for the NFL.
ESPN is not part of the Big Ten’s new contract, ending a more than 40-year partnership. ESPN declined to comment. The network controls the rights to the College Football Playoff through 2026, meaning that Big Ten teams could still appear on ESPN if they make the field.
Paramount Global’s CBS has a longstanding deal to broadcast premium SEC football games that expires after the 2023 season. CBS will carry seven Big Ten football games in the first year of the Big Ten contract for a discounted rate and then pay $350 million per year to air up to 15 games a year, including a matchup on Black Friday, for the remaining six years, according to people familiar. CBS will also air men’s and women’s basketball, continuing to show the men’s Big Ten Tournament semifinals and final and adding the women’s Big Ten Tournament final for the first time. All games will be simultaneously streamed on Paramount+.
Likewise, Comcast Corp.’s NBC will pay $350 million per year for the rights to air between 14 and 16 Big Ten football games each season as well as a raft of basketball and Olympic sports programming. Eight football games per season will air exclusively on Peacock, NBC’s direct-to-consumer streaming service.
The Big Ten football championship game will rotate among partner networks, much as the Super Bowl does in the NFL. Fox will air the game in 2023, 2025, 2027 and 2029. CBS will carry it in 2024 and 2028. NBC will air it in 2026.
Warren previously said that deal was close to finalized early in the summer, but negotiations went back into high gear once UCLA and USC announced they would leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten. Adding the California schools gave the league direct ties to the three largest media markets in the United States—New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
“With the addition of USC and UCLA, it really is the most national of conferences,” said NBC Sports chairman Pete Bevacqua.
However, Big Ten member schools will not immediately see a substantial increase in their payouts from the conference due to the sloping nature of the new deal. A person familiar with the contract said that initial payouts to schools in 2023 will not differ substantially from the amount distributed to longtime members in 2021, which federal tax records showed to be between $43.1 to $49.1 million according to federal tax records. Disbursements will increase in 2024 when Big Ten membership expands to 16 schools and accelerate dramatically thereafter.
LikeLike
Key details:
Money:
Fox – ?
BTN – ?
CBS – $350M from 2024
NBC – $350M (streaming makes up for 1 less CCG)
Football games:
Fox/FS1 – 24-27 in 2023 up to 32 in 2024, 4 CCGs
CBS – 7 in 2023, 14-15 in 2024, 2 CCGs
NBC – 14-16, 1 CCG
Peacock – 8 (exclusive) + co-streaming
Paramount+ – co-streaming only
BTN – 38-41 in 2023, maybe after that
Other sports:
BTN – 126 MBB, other
Fox/FS1 – 45 MBB, other
Peacock – 32-47 MBB, other
CBS – 9-15 MBB + M BTT semis/final + W BTT final
There will be 2 Black Friday games, and presumably several other Friday night games (for Peacock).
LikeLike
Right. Looks like CBS is getting UNL-Iowa in the afternoon and NBC either the PSU/MSU/RU/UMD visiting UCLA (which they probably prefer) or the Bucket game in Lucas Oil at night.
Or USC-UCLA with ND@USC moved up a week.
Hmm. Or it possible that the B10 locks UNL and Wisconsin with UCLA and they alternate visiting UCLA on Black Friday night.
LikeLike
It could be argued the Pac killed itself through its probable weak offer from ESPN. Warren will let the Big 12 take its “four corners” piece of the carcass before diving in for Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington (entering on the B1G’s terms). Want in, ND? You’ll be #21, with three other slots reserved for ACC emigres come 2036.
LikeLike
B1G & Pac = Rose Bowl brothers
B1G = Cain
Pac = Abel
LikeLike
SEC & B12 = Sugar Bowl brothers
SEC = Cain
B12 = Abel
LikeLike
IJust don’t see the B10 taking all 4 of UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford.
For 1, UO is in a small market with few B10 alums, and isn’t up toosnuff academically. It’s a lesser UNL without even the benefit of traveling fans who can goose up ticket sales at B10W stadiums.
The other 3 may not be extremely dilutive and are good to great in all the secondary aspects (NoCal has a good number of people as does WA, the Bay Area has a ton of B10 grads and Seattle has some too; Stanford and Cal are elite academically while UW fits in with the rest of the B10 research U’s) so I can see a case being made for possibly 2 of them. Especially the Bay Area schools who are within busing distance of LA. All 3 of them if ND joins too.
But not all 4 of those schools.
LikeLike
Richard: “IJust don’t see the B10 taking all 4 of UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford.
For 1, UO is in a small market with few B10 alums, and isn’t up to snuff academically. It’s a lesser UNL without even the benefit of traveling fans who can goose up ticket sales at B10W stadiums.”
While I agree with you in principle, I will say that it also helps to add quality product that’s showing up on the field too. UO might have undesirable demographics and academics, but they aren’t Boise State. And they’ve probably been the most consistent Pac12 team in the 21st Century given USC’s troubles post-Carroll. They’re the only Pac12 team to play in the CFP NCG. In a way they’re West Coast Clemson, with worse results but probably better academics. So much of their future is likely tied up in Phil Knight’s plans though, much like Clemson’s feels tied up in Dabo Swinney.
*If* the B10 decided to take that many Pac12 schools, they could be inclined to take UO, if anything, because it would (as stands) improve the product on the field (and television) more than Stanford/Cal will. In that move they’d get a little of everything, and it’d be a little easier to justify Cal/Stanford to the t-shirt fans if they’re joining with UO/UW.
I personally don’t think the B10 would want quite so many teams from one conference, and certainly not all at once. But I also never thought USC/UCLA would be in the conference so shows what I know.
LikeLike
UW is elite academically. In ARWU they are #14 in the US, ahead of all the Big 10 schools.
LikeLike
bullet: “UW is elite academically. In ARWU they are #14 in the US, ahead of all the Big 10 schools.”
UW’s biggest knock is the same knock against every remaining school not named Notre Dame: they don’t bring enough money to the table to warrant it by themselves.
UW’s academics have never been in question I believe. UO has been the only realistic B10 target from Pac12 that’s had its academics questioned.
LikeLike
Why would the “4 corners” schools leave the Pac for the Big-12 BEFORE the Pac falls apart? It makes no sense. . . at all. It’s not like the Big-12 has other teams to add instead.
LikeLike
Redwood: “Why would the “4 corners” schools leave the Pac for the Big-12 BEFORE the Pac falls apart?”
Because rats and men tend to jump off of a sinking ship.
LikeLike
Probably, but I still think we’re done with major expansion for the next 7 years. Leaving that carrot dangling, however, all but guarantees that the PAC-12-2 don’t sign any sort of long term GoR. None of them want to risk losing the next golden ticket. If I was to guess the B1G will figure out how the current expansion and TV deal works, and if they determine they need additional west coast teams to support their LA outpost they’ll grab ‘em then.
If I was the Big XII I’d be pushing the narrative to any/all the 4 corner schools that the B1Gs statement on expansion virtually guarantees the eventual extinction of the PAC as we know it, so better get out while the getting’s good.
If I was the PAC (and the rumors that their expansion options look thin) I’d swallow my pride and take all the top Big XII teams I could lure.
LikeLike
I will add this tweet from McMurphy
LikeLike
There’s a later quote in that article that the Big 10 wants to expand with Pac 12 schools to alleviate USC and UCLA’s travel concerns. That gives a motivation beyond money and answers a question I had as to whether their priority was helping the 2 new schools or minimizing travel for the existing 14.
LikeLike
Last month, Action Network reported the Big Ten would expand beyond 16 schools and was targeting Notre Dame, along with Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal from the Pac-12. Those plans have not changed, sources said this week.
Regardless of whether Notre Dame joins the Big Ten or remains independent, the league still wants to add more Pac-12 schools to help reduce potential travel concerns for USC and UCLA, sources said.
I don’t know what to make of those sorts of statements. “Sources” say the B10 plans to expand with ND, UO, UW, Cal, and Stanford. Presumably they mean 4 of those 5, but maybe not. But just because those same sources still believe it doesn’t make it true for the B10 as a whole. Warren could want it but the presidents don’t. Some presidents may want it, but others don’t. There all sorts of possible factions. This could just be a vocal minority trying to use the press to get what they want. Or these sources could be too low-level to know what those actually making the decisions are thinking (ADs often disagree with the presidents, for example).
I have yet to hear a good answer for why the P12 schools wouldn’t already be invited if the B10 truly wanted them. ND said no a while ago, but even if they were waiting on ND they could still add at least 3 of the P12 schools (or even just a pair). They can build in escalators clauses for expansion, but it’s even simpler to just add the schools.
The only plausible reason that comes to my mind is that the B10 doesn’t want to do unequal revenue shares, and USC didn’t want to subsidize any more P12 schools, so the B10 needs to wait until the CFP expansion kicks in and the next big funding jump happens. They’ll use that bump to cover any lack of value of the newbies so everyone gets equal money and still gets a bump from the CFP expansion.
LikeLike
Or the B10 may have waited if other expansion candidates were borderline so the B10 wanted to see what sort of escalator clauses they could negotiate for additions and what various carriers were willing to pay for an extra package (like After Dark games).
Especially when it comes to the West Coast schools, if it isn’t a slam-dunk addition (like USC and travel partner UCLA were), you lose nothing from waiting.
LikeLike
On the other hand, once you’ve negotiated it all you could just add them. Waiting always involves some risk. What if they get forced to sign a GOR in the P12, then aren’t available when you want them? It’s a minor hassle, but why risk it? Why risk USC and UCLA not having western friends for a few years?
If those schools are truly wanted, I don’t see the upside in this delay.
LikeLike
That’s because I said they’re probably borderline. IMO, there are plenty of positive reasons to add 2 of Stanford/Cal/UW if you can make the finances work. But if you’re not sure if you can make the finances work, then you don’t add them. You can’t exactly say “oopsies, you didn’t bring as much extra revenue as we projected; we’re kicking you out again”. By not adding yet, you hold an option. The world isn’t completely black and white where something definitely is worth it or definitely isn’t. Borderline cases truly do exist.
LikeLike
UW and Oregon applied. The Big 10 has been talking to them. They aren’t in the dark. Warren said the deal was basically done when UCLA and USC stepped in. So, apparently, then they worked the deal with them. They tried to fold in the others, but TV wasn’t as enthused. They closed the deal on what they knew was coming. Now they will see what ND does. And they will do a different deal with other Pac schools if they invite them. They will have a buy-in as did Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.
Warren said it was the most complex deal he had ever done. Think the phrase was 9 dimensional chess. Finalizing the deal with 16 kept the task manageable. At some point you need to tie down all the moving parts before moving forward. And the deal expires next July, so they couldn’t wait too long.
LikeLike
Richard,
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m disagreeing with those who claim the B10 absolutely, positively wants 2-4 of those schools but is waiting for some unexplained reason. If the B10 was 100% sure they wanted more P12 schools, then they’d already be invited.
LikeLike
Could there be political issues in California if the B1G left Cal out but added Stanford, UCLA and USC at this time?
LikeLike
How? The regents didn’t make a big stink at their meeting, and they have no say over Stanford or USC. USC and UCLA are a fait accompli at this point, and Stanford can do whatever it wants.
The political issue would be if Stanford got in instead of UCLA because the regents interfered – that would have backlash and repercussions for them.
LikeLike
With inflation what it is, the payouts should increase drastically. I do expect our current inflation to be transitory but that may mean inflation going down and settling around 5% annually rather than the 2% or so that we’ve grown use to during the Great Moderation.
What that does mean is that the SEC will be drastically underpaid again by the end of its super-long contract a decade from now.
And the CCG rotating makes more sense then as to how much CBS and NBC paid for only 2nd and 3rd choice picks every week. It makes the what each network is paying more.
LikeLike
I think SEC got some pretty big escalators built in from Texas/OU which should help them out a lot in that respect though.
I’m expecting Big Ten and SEC payouts to be pretty close together in 2025 and beyond.
LikeLike
z33k – back of the napkin math looks like – if OU & UT only get a pro-rata of the current deal – the SEC would be $18m behind the B1G. The SEC can also increase the number of league games from 8 to 9 creating better inventory to sweeten the deal. I have to think some “value added” bump comes into play since the SEC added two football kings that are also TV ratings kings. The SEC has a profit sharing agreement with Disney and also has a “look in” clause to maintain fair market value. I expect the B1G to be ahead, but not by much.
LikeLike
I’m expecting the two conferences to be within a couple million a year per school, not a big difference at all.
Texas/OU are that valuable for sure.
USC might be slightly more valuable than either given its in an entirely separate huge market where SEC is already in Texas, but UCLA is nowhere near that level.
So yeah, I just don’t see a scenario where the Big Ten and SEC payouts are that different from one another.
LikeLike
The B10 will be ahead of the SEC by a little bit (and both ahead of everybody else by a lot) until the B10 gets a new TV deal in 7 years. Then, assuming decently high inflation, the B10 will be ahead of the SEC by a significant amount for a few years until the SEC signs its new deal.
LikeLike
“Peacock will televise eight Big Ten football games annually from 2023-29.”
This sounds somewhat sinister to me. They’ll try to have each of the 16 schools appear once a year so that all of the fans in the conference will need to sign up for their streaming service.
LikeLike
I saw it was 4 OOC and 4 conference.
LikeLike
Mike,
Where did you see that? I haven’t seen it in any of the major stories. They also haven’t said if those will all be Friday night games (I hope not)
LikeLike
ESPN still has a chance at a small package of games?
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/08/18/Media/Big-Ten-Media-Deal.aspx
LikeLike
ESPN still has a shot at a small package of games?
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/08/18/Media/Big-Ten-Media-Deal.aspx
LikeLike
Yeah, BTN can always sell more of the games its keeping and considering that it’ll have 100+ basketball and 50 football games that’s a lot that ESPN could buy from…
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/08/18/Media/Big-Ten-Media-Deal.aspx
SBJ’s article. Includes this chart (hopefully this works)
Key Power Five media-rights deals
PROPERTY
MEDIA
PARTNER(S)
YEARS
EXPIRES
TOTAL
AVG.
VALUE
Big Ten (starts 2023)
Fox/NBC/CBS
7
2030
$8.05B
$1.15B
College Football Playoff
ESPN
12
2025-26
$7.3B
$608.33M
SEC (starts 2024)
ESPN
10
2034
$3B
$300M
Pac-12
Fox/ESPN
12
2024
$3.0B
$250M
Big Ten
Fox
6
2023
$2.64B
$250M
ACC
ESPN
20
2036
$4.8B
$240M
Big 12
Fox/ESPN
13
2025
$2.6B
$200M
Big Ten
ESPN
6
2023
$1.14B
$190M
SEC
CBS
15
2023
$825M
$55M
Notre Dame (football)
NBC
10
2025
$150M
$15M
Big Ten (basketball)
CBS
6
2023
$60M
$10M
Source: SBJ Research
LikeLike
The SEC number (300M a year) seems low. For some reason I thought ESPN paid 300M for just CBS’s package not the entire SEC.
LikeLike
Yeah it is, SEC and ESPN have 2 separate deals.
The first deal is the 20 year deal that includes SEC Network and a lot of other ESPN content through 2034.
The second deal was this Tier 1 deal to take the CBS package to ESPN/ABC.
Together they’re a lot more than $300 million; probably a lot closer to $800 million to $1 billion annually after Texas/OU enter.
Big Ten and SEC will have similar payouts.
LikeLike
Out of anyone, I would expect the SBJ to know that.
LikeLike
Mike,
Look at their table. The SEC deal averages $710M starting in 2024, and that was pre-expansion so it will escalate when UT and OU arrive in 2025. The $300M is just temporary.
LikeLike
I think they updated the table from when you copied it. It shows me $710M now.
LikeLike
@Brian – Yep. It looks like they ninja edited me.
LikeLike
The 20 year Tier II deal was $300 million a year, but I believe that has been adjusted. They apparently originally left off the new deal for Tier I. It was $55 million with CBS but now is something over $300 million with ESPN. SBJ is now saying the combination of those two is $710 million.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s not what they say on the webpage. Maybe they corrected it?
LikeLike
The conference will conduct a draft among the three networks to determine who gets which games.
Among the other unique elements in these deals, NBC has committed to a $100,000 advertising budget with each conference school to promote their academic missions. Warren said it’s similar to Notre Dame’s “What would you fight for?” two-minute video series that runs on NBC during the Fighting Irish’s football games.
…
That juggling will leave CBS with a reduced package of seven Big Ten games for the 2023 season, compared to 14-15 games in subsequent seasons.
Those Big Ten games on CBS mostly will be games early in the season before its SEC schedule begins.
CBS’s presentation of Big Ten games will look and sound like its SEC games, from the announcers to the music and overall production. Warren said the long-term benefit of having CBS as a partner was easily worth navigating the short-term conflict.
“I made up my mind early on that I was not going to put CBS in a position where they had to say no because they had to break the SEC contract,” Warren said. “That wasn’t the right thing to do. So, we just had to get creative. You’ve got a partner you’re excited about and you don’t want to lose that, so they’re going to have half of a package in that first year.”
NBC’s football inventory will be 16 games per season in prime time.
…
NBC’s lineup on linear TV will tout Notre Dame in a 3:30 p.m. window, followed by the Big Ten game on Saturday night, providing the network with a hefty 1-2 college football punch.
NBC’s longstanding relationship with Notre Dame also could create more matchups between the Fighting Irish and Big Ten schools, like Michigan, which has fallen off Notre Dame’s schedule in recent years. The two rivals have played just twice since 2014 and aren’t scheduled to play again until 2033.
NBC might be in a better position to facilitate some of those games, depending on how aggressive the Irish want to schedule in the future.
“To be able to create this lineup of games on linear channels — the word that comes to mind is home run,” said former Fox Sports President Bob Thompson, who now runs a media consultancy. “It’s like the anti-streamer package.
“This is huge for all of these local stations. Then you’ve got the ability to promote and cross-promote these games across the channels.
“When you think about who the competitors will be to bid on the College Football Playoff, it used to be just ESPN and Fox. Now, with NBC a player and CBS still involved, who knows if they might go shopping for something else.”
…
Another media expert, Len DeLuca, the former CBS, IMG and ESPN executive who now teaches at New York University’s Stern College of Business, said the Big Ten benefitted from three major factors: the evolution of these mega-deals in college athletics; the structure of the deals that put games on over-the-air TV; and perhaps most importantly, timing. NBC and CBS both found themselves with needs and resources at a time when college football is flourishing.
“This was inevitable,” DeLuca said. “This is the evolutionary process of college football reaching its next level. … The surprising piece for me has been NBC and the fact that they’ve been this active.”
While the Big Ten did not hire a media expert in the traditional sense, Warren did lean on two consultants at times in the negotiations — Proskauer’s Joe Leccese and Endeavor’s Karen Brodkin and Hillary Mandel.
LikeLike
B1G hit a home run with CBS. Danielson is a little irritating, but Nessler is as good as it gets. CBS, hands down, puts on the best game presentation for CFB. The theme song is iconic. The only double-edged sword is that CBS loves to sell commercials, so get ready for four hour games.
I will miss the SEC on CBS.
LikeLike
Hi KAREN!!! 😂😂 Too funny!
LikeLike
I like Herbie, Blackledge, and Tessitore, and you folks will get a lot more of those guys.
Honestly, all of the top-tier broadcasting teams are pretty good.
Sadly, I following Northwestern, which means an inordinate amount of Beth Mowins (and Pam Ward in the past). Also, Matt Millen sounds drunk most of the time (which is sad more than anything; I’m pretty certain the guy is suffering from CTE).
LikeLike
Danielson will be a lot more tolerable when he is acting as a B10 homer (which he is by right) rather than an SEC homer.
Did you think Fox didn’t like to sell commercials? Or NBC? I expect all of these games to be 4+ hour windows going forward. The TV timeout guy may get more field time than the players.
LikeLike
Rough numbers:
SBJ says $8.05B total over 7 years, so $1.15B average = $71.9M/school
CBS = NBC = $350
Fox = $1,150 – 2* $350M = $450M
We know it’s backloaded, with CBS paying less in 2023 and then a jump in 2024 from CBS, plus the LA schools joining.
2023 is supposed to be about the same as for 2022, which should be around $60M.
Assume USC and UCLA are a pro rata bump (it’s likely a touch more than that):
Average = $1.00B for current 14 schools at $71.9M/school
CBS = NBC = $306
Fox = $1,150 – 2* $350M = $394M
In 2023, CBS gets half as many games, mostly in weeks 1 and 2 and not all at 3:30. Let’s generously say that’s worth 40% of the normal fee.
2023:
CBS = $122M
NBC = $306M
Fox = $394M
Total = $822M = $58.7M/school
That didn’t account for a typical 5% escalator, nor for NBC probably paying more (relatively, at least) in 2023 because they get the #2 pick almost every week.
LikeLike
Small nitpick:
If CBS is paying $122mm the first year and averages $350 over the other 6 years and NBC averages $350mm/year, then CBS+NBC will pay $4.672B and Fox pays 3.378B over 7 years or $482.5mm/year.
I don’t know where you got your 2023 numbers but going with them, that means when the LA schools join, the average payout per school for the last 6 years is $75.3mm/school.
LikeLike
So over the last 6 years of the deal (after the LA schools join), the B10 will take in an average of 1.2B/year.
LikeLike
Those are all made up numbers by me to do a rough analysis. People had said the value would be around $50M in 2023 and I was just showing how that might work. There are all sorts of assumptions and bad math involved. I didn’t try to correct for the offset in CBS’ spending, or escalators, or anything else.
Doing it again but changing the first assumption:
Assume USC and UCLA are a $200M bump:
Average = $950M for current 14 schools at $67.9M/school
CBS = NBC = $289M
Fox = $950 – 2*$289M = $372M
In 2023, CBS gets half as many games, mostly in weeks 1 and 2 and not all at 3:30. Let’s generously say that’s worth 40% of the normal fee.
2023:
CBS = $116M
NBC = $289M
Fox = $372M
Total = $777M = $55.5M/school
This still ignores that $173M missing from CBS in 2023, and the escalation (5% per year?).
Based on 5% escalation, $1.15B in year 4 is about $1B in year 1, so correct for it:
Year 1 = $800M for current 14 schools at $57.1M/school
CBS = NBC = $243M
Fox = $800 – 2*$243M = $313M
In 2023, CBS gets half as many games, mostly in weeks 1 and 2 and not all at 3:30. Let’s say that’s worth 50% of the normal fee.
2023:
CBS = $122M
NBC = $243M
Fox = $313M
Total = $678M = $48.4M/school
This still ignores that value missing from CBS in 2023, but it’s pretty close to the supposed $50M number.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/18/big-ten-announces-new-media-tv-rights-deal-kevin-warren
Another good summary – the details seem to vary a bit from story to story.
The inventory breakdown by platform will be as follows:
* Fox/FS1 will have 24–27 football games in 2023–24, then 30–32 games each of the next six years. It also will air four of the seven Big Ten championship games during the contract. Fox/FS1 will broadcast 45 men’s basketball games in ’23–24 and at least that many in the years thereafter, but none of the men’s conference tournament. They will have the option to broadcast “select” women’s basketball games and distribute “select” Olympic sports events.
* Big Ten Network will have 38–41 football games in 2023–24 before increasing to a max of 50 games for the rest of the deal. It will have a minimum of 126 men’s basketball games annually, including eight from the men’s basketball tournament prior to the semifinals and championship. BTN also will show a minimum of 49 women’s basketball games per season, including conference tournament games prior to the championship. BTN will continue to be the “primary home” of the league’s Olympic sports.
* NBC will have 16 football games in 2023 and 14–15 thereafter. That will include one championship game. The network that made its Sunday night NFL broadcasts a staple of American football viewing and carved out a college niche with Notre Dame will apply its same production value to the Big Ten prime-time window. Expect extensive cross-promotion between the NFL and Big Ten productions.
* Peacock, which won the direct-to-consumer part of the deal, will have eight football games per season for the length of the contract. It also will show 32 men’s basketball games in 2023–24 (20 of them conference matchups) and 47 thereafter (32 league contests). That will include an opening-night doubleheader from the men’s tournament. On the women’s side, Peacock will stream 30 games a season, 20 of which are conference play. Peacock also is a likely destination for a significant amount of Olympic sports coverage as part of a tie-in with NBC’s status as the American rights-holder for the Summer and Winter Olympics.
* CBS will air seven football games during the 2023–24 season, as it shares broadcast time with its SEC commitment. That will increase to 14 or 15 games per season thereafter and include two Big Ten title games. In men’s basketball, which CBS already has carried for years, the inventory will start with 9–11 games in ’23–24 and increase to 15 thereafter. Thirteen of those will be conference games from ’24 to 30. CBS will also get the semifinals and championship game of the league tournament, and the women’s tourney title game.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34417911/big-ten-completes-7-year-7-billion-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc
New details:
Bevacqua said NBC remained “in constant contact” with Notre Dame during negotiations about obtaining a Big Ten rights package. He added that NBC will continue to broadcast some Notre Dame night home games, which would replace the Big Ten prime-time game on those weeks.
But they still have to show 14-15 games, and primetime is the B10 slot. So how are they making up for it? With Labor Day weekend and Black Friday games? I suppose that works.
No word about NBC looking for afternoon games when ND is playing on the road. Maybe they talk to the P12 or B12 about that?
LikeLike
Right, Black Friday night game, Labor Day Sunday night game, and maybe a Labor Day (Monday) night game as well.
LikeLike
https://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/big-ten-conference-announces-groundbreaking-media-rights-agreements/
A good breakdown by network and sport. Terrible slide color palette choices by the B10, though.
LikeLike
SLC radio show podcast about the P12 media deal.
* Cap is about $300M
* ESPN wants 2 late night games per week, 1 for TV and 1 for ESPN+
* P12 is struggling to find expansion candidates. They claim even SDSU isn’t excited (maybe they want a counter-offer from B12?) about it, but I find it hard to believe SDSU would say no to an offer.
LikeLike
I find it hard to believe SDSU would say no to an offer
They can’t say no, the bump in prestige, exposure, home ticket sales all matter. But if the Pac-12 is looking at unequal revenue sharing, their opening offer to any newbie might be embarrassingly low ball.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/further-big-ten-expansion-could-open-door-for-additional-revenue-broadcast-partners/
Future B10 expansion may get ESPN into the B10 media deal according to Dennis Dodd. He also discusses the P12 and B12.
Though the Big Ten reached a historic seven-year deal with CBS, Fox and NBC on Thursday, the conference may soon have more inventory on its plate. The Big Ten may consider further expansion before — or even after — its new media rights agreement with the three broadcast behemoths on July 1, 2023.
…
Should it expand, the Big Ten would need a rightsholder (or rightsholders) to pay for its extra inventory. CBS, Fox and NBC already have their schedules set with what they believe to be cost certainty — number games to be televised, windows to televise those games and a “selection draft” for the most desirable games.
“I would keep that window open for ESPN,” a high-profile source with extensive knowledge of media rights told CBS Sports. “Until all this is done, there are lots of moving parts. Never say never.”
…
“I don’t think there’s any concern [regarding expansion],” said CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus. “We have really good exclusivity provisions in our contract. I can’t go into specifics, but our window [to show games] is protected.
“If there were additional games to be added in different time slots, we would certainly take a look at that. I’m sure NBC and Fox would also. Expansion, by and large, would only be a positive. But we would have to find windows and time slots to air any potential games but that would be a benefit to everybody.”
…
Fallout from the Big Ten media rights deal
Futures of Pac-12, Big 12 hang in the balance: Separate from any Big Ten discussion, ESPN now has a chance to become somewhat of a “kingmaker” regarding these leagues. Each conference is eying the other’s schools in what could become the next big realignment story. Without a Big Ten deal, ESPN has theoretically freed up money to spend as both conferences are currently in flux.
The Pac-12 is desirable because ESPN would not otherwise have any games in the valuable “fourth window” — after 10 p.m. ET. The “Pac-12 After Dark” tag has been ridiculed by some, but it would be valuable to ESPN.
Taken to the extreme, it’s worth asking: Would ESPN now have an influence over which league survives this round of realignment? There is already word circulating that the Pac-12 — in the middle of its own media rights negotiations — might have to agree to a media rights contract that allows Cal, Oregon Stanford and Washington an “out” if approached by another conference.
It is already known that any combination of the two leagues doesn’t necessarily add value to one or the other. The Pac-12’s current deal expires in 2024, while the Big 12’s deal with Fox and ESPN ends in 2025.
There is some feeling in the industry that, if the Big 12 doesn’t strike now and snag some Pac-12 teams, the opportunity might be lost. “This is their window,” one insider said of the Big 12. “If they can’t do it now, I would think the Pac-12 is going to find their financial situation.”
…
Despite the upheaval, the Pac-12 still has an advantage because it is closer to calling for a show of hands (grant of rights) in a new agreement than the Big 12. The Big 12 is at least a year from the beginning of formal negotiations on a new rights deal.
…
Closest thing to the NFL: It’s more than coincidence that the Big Ten and SEC combined have the same amount of teams as the NFL, 32. There have already been comparisons the leagues are so NFL-like that the SEC might as well be the AFC and the Big Ten the NFC. “I have heard that,” Warren said.
…
Warren reiterated to CBS Sports that he is open to learning more about unionization. “In the next couple of months, I’m going to be digging into the legitimate facts regarding unionization,” he said.
There is no College Football Playoff without these two leagues, so why wait to expand until 2026 like the CFP contract says? A 16-team playoff has already been discussed by FBS commissioners.
These 32 are about to form a different way to think about college football. Big Ten has the best markets and biggest population. SEC has the best traditions, best recruiting grounds and most successful programs over the last 15 years. Together, they offer the best college football. Does anything else matter?
LikeLike
I saw your post after I p Expect the B10 to sell ESPn the Ndreally hard on ea that 15 After Dark games (like played at West Coast locales (including some brand names) is worth $150mm/year.
LikeLike
It occurred to me that the B10 wouldn’t even need escalators with current partners in order to add 2 more West Coast schools (say Stanford+Cal or Stanford+UW). They’d just need somebody willing to pay an average of $150mm/year (or more) for the 4th pick each week to air during the late night window (so home games at West Coast schools only). The CBS deal would not be affected at all. The NBC deal barely (lower picks for Peacock but more to choose from). Most of the value of the Fox deal is for that #1 pick each week and the B10 title games they get. It’s possible that only a streamer like Amazon would overpay for that pick and time slot, however.
LikeLike
See Dodd’s piece I just excerpted above. Some think ESPN might get the extra inventory if that happens.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-reaches-seven-year-media-rights-deal-with-cbs-fox-and-nbc-for-football-basketball-through-2029-30/
CBS’ summary article, also with a good table.
CBS, which will be in the final year of its SEC deal in 2023, will air seven Big Ten football games in various windows that season before expanding to a full schedule of 14-15 games annually from 2024-29. The Big Ten will have an exclusive 3:30 p.m. window on CBS from 2024 onward and the ability to air as many as two games on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. CBS will also air the Big Ten Championship Game in 2024 and 2028. All CBS games will be live streamed on Paramount+.
…
Industry insiders expressed surprise Fox did not end up with all seven championship football games. Those added significant value to the deal for CBS and NBC.
“That was really important to us,” McManus explained. “When you have the championship game in that particular year, you have a sales increase because of the ‘halo effect’ [enhancing the brand]. Having two [championship games] is great.”
…
McManus said at least a couple of the Big Ten games airing on CBS next season would be scheduled for Weeks 1 and 2. Those are open windows because the SEC on CBS typically begins in Week 3. Big Ten games may also be shown on Black Friday as well as part of an SEC-Big Ten doubleheader on certain Saturdays.
…
When USC and UCLA join the Big Ten in 2024, each of the 16 Big Ten schools will receive an average of $75 million annually from media rights. That does not include revenue from the College Football Playoff, bowl games or the NCAA Tournament, which can vary from school-to-school. All media rights deals are typically backloaded, peaking in the final years of the agreements.
The SEC is expected to have a similar payout when its new contract with ESPN begins in 2024. Based on projected payouts of the remaining eight FBS conferences, those two leagues will be ahead of the other Power Five conferences with payouts earning their programs at least $30 million more annually.
…
Additional Big Ten media rights details
Which networks will air which games? The Big Ten and Fox will coordinate a “draft” with games being chosen by the networks across each of the seven years of the deal. Fox will have the first pick each year, a source told CBS Sports, meaning the network will likely will end up the crown jewel of the intraconference matchups: Michigan vs. Ohio State. CBS and NBC will trade off the second and third picks in various years, according to sources.
Will ESPN be left out? Starting in 2024, ESPN will not be airing intraconference Big Ten football games or home basketball games for the first time in 40 years. Given the Big Ten has a quarter of the United States’ population in its footprint, that’s significant for both the conference and ESPN. Some Big Ten nonconference games that include ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC opponents will still air on ESPN, per those media agreements.
Warren did not express concern when asked whether he expects his conference to be covered in the same way by ESPN. “We have a 40-year relationship with them,” he said. “Life is long. They’re professionals. Inherent in our scheduling we’re going to play schools from the ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12. We still have to address the ACC-Big Ten Challenge. … ESPN is such a prominent partner in college athletics. We’ll always have a partnership with them.”
LikeLike
Frank, we need a new article. Comments here are now messed up.
LikeLike
Richard: “Frank, we need a new article. Comments here are now messed up.”
Comments have been messed up for me since around 1500 comments ago. I assume Frank’s cooking up a post to discuss the media deal and what that means for expansion next round?
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2022/08/132298/presser-bullets-gene-smith-excited-by-huge-big-ten-tv-deal-would-be-in-favor-of-eliminating-divisions-in-the
Gene Smith press conference tidbits:
* Smith says the financial details aren’t set yet, and that some numbers that are out there might just be projections based on the previous deal. “The money was huge.”
* Smith says the Big Ten is talking about no divisions, but that decision has not been finalized.
* On the Big Ten not having divisions, Smith says he would be in favor of doing so “next week.”
* On the prospect of Big Ten athletes getting a piece of the new TV revenue: “Frankly, they’re already getting a piece of the television revenue.” Smith says the facilities and staff at Ohio State are “an investment in them.”
* Smith says as soon as “pay for play” starts, “I’m out.”
* Smith says he and Chris Holtmann had a “great conversation” about scheduling future basketball games against programs that will still be on different networks, such as ESPN.
* Smith says Ohio State’s travel costs for all sports have “gone up significantly” in the past year. Smith says he’s “praying” for a 12-team College Football Playoff
Scheduling based on each school’s media deals? That works for hoops I suppose. Harder to do in CFB when they schedule 10 years in advance and TV deals are shorter than that.
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/football/2022/08/18/ohio-state-football-could-play-michigan-twice-big-ten-without-divisions-format/65408689007/
More from Gene Smith:
Ohio State’s athletic director said he is in favor of a proposal to eliminate divisions in the Big Ten when Southern California and UCLA join the conference in 2024. In the current East-West format, Ohio State and Michigan are in the East and therefore can’t meet in the Big Ten title game.
In a division-less conference, the Buckeyes and Wolverines could meet in the championship game after playing their traditional regular-season finale. That possibility was considered a drawback to any prior proposal regarding changing the league’s format. That rivalry game takes such an emotional and physical toll that repeating it for even bigger stakes seemed overly daunting.
But Smith is willing to accept the possibility of two straight Ohio State-Michigan games.
“Yes, at the beginning, I had that concern, right when we first started this (discussion),” Smith said. “I got over that.
“It could happen. From a season-long scheduling point of view, when you bring in USC and UCLA and the fact that we’re trying to do the best matchups the year before, (having) no divisions is better.”
…
Smith spoke on the day the Big Ten announced its new media rights deal with Fox, CBS, NBC and NBCUniversal’s Peacock. He said finalizing that contract allows the conference to delve into work on many other issues the conference faces. Whether to switch to a no-division format is one.
“It’s a new culture for us,” Smith said. “But it’s important. There’s just a lot of work to be done, and we’re ready to roll up our sleeves with our new partners in the mix and try to determine what’s best for us.”
Smith said football schedules will be set in October for the following seasons instead of finalizing conference schedules several years in advance, as is now the case.
He said he wasn’t sure what criteria will be used to make schedules.
“We’ve got to figure that out,” Smith. “We knew it’s a model we have to go to and include our television partners in that process. Now that we have them, we can begin that conversation. Is it going to be based on who’s going to be strong the next year or based upon dates or whatever?”
…
Smith said the conference also has to decide whether to add another conference game. He said at least a couple of athletic directors are in favor of playing 10 conference games instead of nine.
“That’s always been talked about,” he said. “We haven’t made that decision.”
…
Smith said expanding the College Football Playoff before its current contract with ESPN expires in 2026 is a possibility.
“You honor the contract,” he said. “If they (ESPN) benefit from it, I’m fine with that. I don’t see a problem with that.”
Smith favors CFP expansion from four teams to 12.
…
Warren said Smith and Ohio State president Kristina Johnson played “enormous” roles in helping him during negotiations.
“The thing I appreciate most about Gene and Kristina is that they challenge you,” he said. “It’s not like we come into a meeting and talk about certain things and they go along with it. They challenge you. They pressure-test everything. Because of that, it allows you to make sure things are pressure-tested and that they make sense. When you work through issues, especially in a complex deal like this, it is really helpful.”
It sounds like no changes are coming until 2024, so assume divisions will remain and be used for the CCG. OSU won’t try to prevent back-to-back rematches, and I doubt MI will either, since the alternative is moving the rivalry game earlier. It’ll be rare for OSU-MI rematches with 16 teams, I think.
Interesting that they’ll stop making B10 schedules years in advance. Maybe they just don’t want to waste their effort if more expansion might happen? I don’t like asking the networks about it – they already signed deals. They shouldn’t get to add input that they didn’t negotiate for in the deal. The biggest issue for me is that parity-based scheduling could really reduce the frequency of certain matchups, and that isn’t good. I’m fine if it’s just about which weeks to play certain games to spread the best games out more evenly (except changing rivalry week).
I doubt 10 games happens at 16 teams. IA, USC, and UCLA (assuming Cal is locked) would certainly have issues with it, and so may others (esp. if ND-MI returns).
I think I agree with Smith that it’s okay for ESPN to get extra CFP games through 2025-26, but not if ESPN demands more years of exclusivity as a condition of CFP expansion during the current deal. Maybe try to negotiate a way to let others in on the CFP rankings reveals (or something) so they aren’t completely excluded.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-on-high-alert-after
Canzano had some things about the B10 deal.
• $1.2 billion per year average over seven years is in line with the $1.23 billion estimate that former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson floated to me a few weeks ago. He’s been money on this stuff, in part, because he’s negotiated a bunch of these deals himself.
• Thompson crunched the numbers again on Thursday and figured out that the media-rights distribution to Big Ten members caps out at $78.2 million per university in 2029-30.
• Neither Amazon nor Apple made it to the dance floor. Peacock is the only party with an exclusive-streaming package. This surprised some industry insiders who expected Amazon and Apple to be bigger players. Maybe this bodes well for the Pac-12? Or maybe it’s just too soon for the streamers to be factors. We’ll soon know.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten takes 2 more Pac-12 teams, that gives you 14 extra home games/inventory.
With 4 teams out West, you figure an average of 2 will be home every week.
1 of those 2 at home can host a “B1G After Dark” window for ESPN, rotating it around through 4 teams isn’t that bad for 14 games. I’d assume USC gets that a bit less than the others but not a big deal in my mind.
Seems unlikely but a possibility I guess.
How much is that worth though?
Sorta feels like the revenue is stretching pretty far to get to $100 million per school by 2030, just a late night window isn’t enough in my mind.
LikeLike
Well, the average payout for the last 6 years of the deal (after the LA schools join) per school will be about $75mm. So by 2030, the per school payout will be more around $80mm per school. So $150mm average for 15 After Dark games (including dates like Black Friday and Labor Day Sunday) 2024-2030 would pay for the addition of 2 more West Coast schools.
ESPN will pay the NFLWroughly $2.6B for about 23 games a year, or a little more than $100mm a game. NFL games average about 17 viewers a game. I think the ESPN/ABC NFL games tend to be lower than that, but whatever. That comes out to roughly $6 per viewer per game. t that rate, the After Dark games only need to average about 1.67 viewers a game to be worth $10mm/game. Granted, NFL games may command a premium while After Dark games may not, but it’s close enough to being in the ballpark to for more West Coast expansion to be worth a possibility. the B10 could throw in a bunch of basketball games for ESPN too. Heck, Maybe run several basketball tournaments for ESPN? OOC basketball games (like the B10-ACC Challenge or a bunch of other challenges) for ESPN.A
LikeLike
Yeah, regardless feels like 4 more schools out West is possibly too much and 3 may be a stretch.
2 feels like the right number without ND involved if the Big Ten has to move without ND.
LikeLike
What is the magic number for the ultimate size of the B1G? If it is 20, the maximum of additional west coast members is 2, and 1 might be better. If it is 2 more, Stanford and Washington. That would create four team west coast pod.
Of course if USC came into the B1G with a handshake agreement for no Washington or Oregon, that just leave Stanford. Cal is too much of a money loser. USC did talk about not wanting WA and OR to have an LA recruiting base, so who knows.
I am assuming that the B1G will leave a slot for ND, and room for a couple of ACC teams 10 or 15 years from now.
LikeLike
22 is likely the absolute maximum in my mind.
20 is the limit without ND in my mind.
2 schools west, 3 schools east, and ND is the absolute maximum that I can see.
Every addition gets harder to justify past 16.
Maybe you can come up with 4 worthy adds without ND if Miami and/or FSU, UNC and maybe Duke, UVA or VA Tech, Washington, Stanford or Oregon are involved.
4 more schools in the West feels like too many.
I think we’re near the end for both the SEC and Big Ten.
22 feels like max for Big Ten and 20 is probable max for SEC.
LikeLike
Could also reverse that and say 3 west+2 east.
Either way I think Big Ten has 5 maximum slots for schools on the West and East Coast and will get 2 on each side minimum.
All comes down to what FSU, UNC, and Miami want to do as well as whether Oregon is acceptable to Big Ten presidents.
Washington and Stanford feel like locks to me at some point to end up in the Big Ten but everything else is uncertain.
East situation and whether Oregon would get invited are the tricky parts.
Miami + a Virginia school is logical in the East, especially if UNC and Duke go to the SEC as a pair.
LikeLike
z33k – I always felt like 24 was the max number for any conference, but looking how to schedule that number, I now feel like 22 is the max, with a 9-game schedule in a 3-6-6-6 format. Three annual opponents with 6 others ending up with a home and home for every other school every six years.
I’d say the B1G’s expansion pool includes Notre Dame, Washington, Stanford, Oregon, Cal, Arizona State, Virginia, VA Tech & Miami, with an outside shot at UNC, and if UNC goes B1G and can dictate terms, then Duke.
I’d say the SEC’s expansion pool includes Florida State, UNC, Clemson, Miami, UVA, VA Tech, NC State & Duke.
The only state I can ever see the B1G and the SEC sharing is Florida with Miami going to the B1G.
LikeLike
Alan,
You can do 24 in many ways:
3 + 4*50% + 16*25%
3 + 12*33% + 8*25%
1 + 6*67% + 16*25%
1 + 4*75% + 2*50% + 16*25%
But I agree, it’s not good.
For 22, I wouldn’t play home and homes. Play every school once every 3 years, so every player can face every school at least once.
LikeLike
And you aren’t playing 21 games in basketball so you completely miss schools.
Further, the ccg is going to be a total joke. There may be years with 3 or more unbeatens. You are only playing 9 of 21 other schools. One year Iowa and Ohio St. were both unbeaten with 11 teams. You played 8 of the other 10 and there were still two unbeatens.
LikeLike
bullet, I think it’s assumed when these conferences expand again that they’ll move to semifinals of sorts.
18-20 team conferences with just a CCG doesn’t make sense, need to have semifinals.
LikeLike
Actually, once the CFP expands to 16 (I think it’s only a matter of “when”, not “if”), the CCG will matter as much as conference basketball tournaments do now. Sure, you’ll see some top teams play each other, but it won’t impact if the very top teams make the playoff field.
I doubt you’ll see conference semifinals.
LikeLike
“I think it’s assumed when these conferences expand again that they’ll move to semifinals of sorts.”
An interesting assumption. Semifinals don’t really solve anything. It’s still fairly likely that there’ll be multiple teams tied for the 3rd-4th spots with no workable head-to-head tie-breaker.
Even in the current system, 3 teams could tie for a division crown, each having a 1-1 record vs the others. That has happened before in other leagues.
LikeLike
bullet,
“And you aren’t playing 21 games in basketball so you completely miss schools.”
The B10 plays 20 games in MBB now, so adding 1 more would be possible. Maybe add 2, so everyone gets a home and home with their rival. They could even go to 23 for a 24-school conference.
“Further, the ccg is going to be a total joke. There may be years with 3 or more unbeatens. You are only playing 9 of 21 other schools. One year Iowa and Ohio St. were both unbeaten with 11 teams. You played 8 of the other 10 and there were still two unbeatens.”
As you note, it already is a joke. I assume they’d use CFP rankings as tiebreakers after head to head. But many assume it would become a 4-team tournament rather than a single game. You could also consider some parity-based scheduling (perhaps in the choice of locked rivals). Without a full round robin, there is always a chance for issues – that’s the justification for a CCG in the first place.
You know I’m not advocating for any of this, just saying it could be done.
LikeLike
@Marc
3 or 4 or even 5 tied teams is okay.
3 undefeated teams is an absolute problem. You’re not going to have 5.
And I think any of us can foresee 3 undefeated teams in a random year; I’m okay with a team with 1 or 2 losses losing a tiebreaker; that’s to be expected. It happens with the CFP.
I think everyone would agree that having a 3rd undefeated team is where things break down.
Just feels like it’d be a huge problem to have a 12-0 team with no shot at winning the conference title.
That’s why I think at 18-20 you have to move to semifinals. There’s too much risk of 3 teams going undefeated when you get to those numbers.
LikeLike
Semi-finals make the ccg even more of a joke. But where would you find time in the schedule and how would you justify the extra game when you are adding games to the CFP? I think the assumption of semi-finals is about like assuming it won’t snow in Chicago in January or rain in Houston in July.
LikeLike
Consider some real heresy – move the season back one week and play the CCGs on Turkey Weekend. That would free up another week for expanded playoff games.
LikeLike
@bullet
I think you go to 2 non-con, 10 conference games. 9 conference games like we have now with 3-6-6-6 for up to 22 teams (with 3 year rotation), and then the final week is a flex week:
“Conference Tournament Week” = 1v4, 2v3, 5v6, 7v8, etc. Maybe only teams with 5 wins minimum play or a 4 win team plays if there’s an odd number of 5+ win teams.
That final 12th week is that tournament week, then the CCG.
But yeah non-conference games are basically just gonna be 2 gimmes forever if that happens.
LikeLike
Flex week doesn’t work unless you have defined home teams. And it would have to be adjusted for one or two teams. And it still doesn’t work for fans who want to travel with their team. Maybe it works for Coastal Carolina, but not for schools that draw 70k a game. Its leaving way too much internally generated revenue on the table. Its a different type fan base than the NFL which is more corporate.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Semi-finals make the ccg even more of a joke.”
How so? The odds of the best team not making the top 4 are relatively low.
“But where would you find time in the schedule and how would you justify the extra game when you are adding games to the CFP?”
Well, they’ve talked about starting the season 1 week earlier. They don’t bother to justify adding games anymore, they just point to the money (see CFP expansion). If they can add 2 more CFP games, “what’s 1 more for a few teams?” is what they’d probably say. After all, 4 P5 CCG winners will likely get a bye in the CFP if they use the 12-team model.
LikeLike
With semi-finals the odds of the top 2 teams making the final are reduced. And the odds of having a relatively weak team are increased. And the odds of a massive tie are significantly increased. There will be more 6-3 teams than 7-2, 8-1 or 9-0 teams most years..
LikeLike
The complaint about expanding the playoffs is that it adds another game (or 2) to the schedule. Conference semi-finals will do the same at a much lower payout. It also will put another loss on 2 of the top conference teams making it less likely the conference will get 3 or 4 playoff selections (or the playoffs picking teams that were tied but lost the tie breaker for the conference semis). This is probably only an issue for the SEC and B10.
LikeLike
I think CFP rankings as tiebreakers would do a lot to make the top 4 pretty representative of the best teams in the conference. And if #4 wins, how does anyone really know if they weren’t the best all year but faced a tougher schedule or something? Sure, upsets happen. But that’s always possible with a CCG.
I’d contend this would be better than unbalanced divisions. How often was the 2nd team in one division better than the other division’s champ?
How often did weak teams make a CCG?
B10:
2012 unranked WI (won)
2018 #21 NW (lost)
ACC:
2 unranked teams (0 won)
12 teams #16-25 (4 won; 2 of those were higher-ranked)
B12:
3 unranked teams (1 won)
3 teams #16-25 (0 won)
P12:
2 unranked teams (1 won)
3 teams #16-25 (0 won)
SEC:
0 unranked teams
8 teams #16-25 (1 won)
LikeLike
The bigger issue is, if the CFP goes to 16, why even bother trying to determine the conference champ using semifinals?
The only scenario where having conference semifinals makes sense is if the B10 and SEC champs face off at the end for the “national” championship. That would freeze out everybody else, though.
We may see a 16 team CFP instead. In that scenario, even conference CCGs don’t make sense.
LikeLike
1. The CFP may not go to 16. Even at 12 it could matter.
2. Maybe the B10 and SEC get their semifinals included as part of the CFP, with the money coming only to them (like their own regions leading to the Final Four). Everyone else fights for the remaining spots (4 or 8 or …), perhaps with B10/SEC at-larges also an option for those spots.
LikeLike
Brian, that would disincentivize winning and having to go through the tougher B10 and SEC brackets though. Unless that was the only way for schools in those conferences to make the Final Four. But would either the SEC or B10 be satisfied with being limited to only a quarter of the Sweet 16, Elite 8, and Final 4? I doubt it.
Hence why I said having expanded conference playoffs only makes sense in a world where the B10 and SEC champs meet to play for the “national” title.
LikeLike
The other interesting state is Virginia I think. Could see that state split given Virginia Tech has become the main in-state football brand.
But yeah I agree generally.
FSU is 99% likely to lean SEC: cultural fit, location in the middle of 4 SEC schools (Alabama/Auburn, Georgia, Florida), etc.
UNC could go either way.
If UNC goes SEC (with FSU and Clemson and UVa or Duke), most likely Big Ten focuses on just Miami +1 (likely UVa or VA Tech) in the East.
Then Big Ten goes west for Washington + 1.
Either way the stage is pretty well set for this to end in the 2030s.
ND likely moves last but Big Ten and SEC get to 20 and that’s it.
Getting very hard to see value beyond FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, and Washington.
Oregon is iffy because it’s not research intensive but nobody knows if that matters.
Stanford, Duke, and 1 or 2 Virginia schools can be involved to round out numbers.
But yeah 8 to 9 schools other than ND is all that’s left.
LikeLike
Alan, agree about FL. In part because 2 of the schools are on the northern tier of the state (and more “southern”) while Miami is on the southern tip of the state (and more “northern”, though really more Caribbean/mixed).
The more I think about it, the more I feel ND+Miami+Stanford+Cal are the final additions by the B10 (FSU+UNC+UVa+Clemson by the SEC).
And it’s a long state.
LikeLike
That’s the interesting thing about Florida. It’s basically like 3 states in one.
At a minimum, when you consider the northern/central thirds of Florida vs the southern third:
Roughly 45% of the Florida population is in the southern third in the Miami region to the area southwest of the Tampa region.
Roughly 55% of the Florida population is in the northern/central thirds from the Tampa-Orlando area to Jacksonville to Tallahassee.
The 4 most prominent public schools are all north/central: UF and FSU have by far been the prominent state schools in Gainesville and Tallahassee, but even the fast growing and new giant UCF is in Orlando. USF has faded in athletics but it probably still registers 4th and it’s in Tampa.
FAU and FIU among others are in the south, but the reality is Miami has the southern third of Florida to itself as far as its athletic brand goes. You’ll find tons of UF/FSU supporters down there of course
Miami had a ton of success early/often in athletics playing a “national” schedule at the time by playing their Big East schedule and winning big.
So they’ve built a strong t-shirt fanbase down in the southern third of Florida by sort of aligning themselves with the Miami pro-teams. There’s a lot of crossover fans of the Miami Dolphins/Miami Heat and the Hurricanes because they built the same style of glitzy brand with the “U” and even the modern turnover chain is like that.
Miami is that type of place, it’s always thought of itself as the “LA of the East” and in that respect, Miami is the “USC of the East.”
There’s tons of wealthy private schools in the southern third of Florida that feed students directly into Miami, where the proximity of staying down there is attractive for families that don’t mind paying the private school price. You see plenty of students from the New York/NJ area as well that go down to Miami for that reason as well.
Academically, they fit just like FSU does at this point; both have good undergraduate rankings and solid research expenditures.
And finally, they’ve done this before and the travel realities of their location means nobody is close to them. FSU is a 4+ hour drive, Ga Tech is a 2 hour plane flight. There’s nobody close; they played a Big East schedule as the only school south of Virginia for years.
Miami to the Big Ten is a pretty logical outcome here if the Big Ten wants a strong football brand that really resonates in a region of 9-10 million people.
LikeLike
Right, Miami is almost like an island. FSU is actually a 7 hour drive away.i
LikeLike
Florida is basically South Georgia of which Jacksonville is the capitol, South New York City/North Havana of which Miami is the capitol and Mouse land with Tampa and Orlando as the capitols.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is a maximum number of schools so long as there are schools worth adding.
Though after 22, you can’t both have at least 3 annual rivals (important for Iowa and probably Minnesota too) as well as play everyone at least every 3 years (well, unless you play 10 conference games, in which case you can go to 25, but Iowa and probably many others would not want that).
In any case, there aren’t that many schools out there that are definitely worth adding. Definitely ND and FSU (if possible). Possibly Miami for location reasons. After that, a lot of borderline cases like Stanford/Cal/UW/UNC/UVa (also Duke and GTech though they are definitely dilutive).
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s a maximum anymore, other than what the media will pay for. If the league stops at 24, it won’t be because the schedule logistics are too hard at 26. The history says that if the money is there, you take it and figure the rest out later.
I tend to think the votes currently aren’t there to add any more PAC-12 schools. As they say in Congress, “When you’ve got the votes, you vote.”
LikeLike
I suspect a majority of Big Ten presidents may favor taking at least 2 more Pac-12 schools but then there might be broad disagreements about which schools and when.
How many to take, whether 2 or 3 or 4 is an issue.
Oregon as a research institution is another issue.
We know the rumors after Nebraska was that some of the presidents only wanted highly research intensive schools after the Nebraska-AAU issue split the schools.
Oregon’s president coming over to Northwestern is interesting in that respect I guess.
But it was clear in the early ’10s when the Big Ten presidents focused squarely on UVA, UNC, Ga Tech, Duke; they were focused on prestigious AAUs that time.
Now things may be different.
Different enough to get schools that are similar to Nebraska in like Miami or FSU or VA Tech? That seems reasonable.
But Oregon is far below those as well, so that might be contentious.
And then there’s Cal and Stanford. Some presidents may want 1 or the other or both.
I think the only school that might be a consensus add right now is Washington.
Washington fits in every way, terrific academic brand, over $1bn in research, strong football brand, giant enrollment public, etc.
But question is always who’s #2 and whether you go farther.
If there were 2 Washington-like candidates; as an example say Oregon was merged with OHSU last decade and secure in AAU status, then I think those 2 would be headed to the Big Ten already.
Just there’s no clear 2 schools to add right now.
LikeLike
From the Athletic: 16 questions
The sports media ecosystem is the rare place where the happiest people in the business are those forking over millions (and sometimes) billions of dollars. On Thursday morning, the Big Ten finally announced its media rights deal — a long and lucrative road that concluded with Fox, CBS and NBC negotiating deals that topped $1 billion per year. As The Athletic and others have confirmed, CBS and NBC are both paying $350 million annually for their seven-year packages. One of the stunning developments: ESPN ending a 40-year relationship between the network and the conference.
It is a huge win for companies involved in linear television as Big Ten football will air on linear properties from noon to 11 p.m. ET (and beyond) every Saturday. The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach has a deep dive on the announcement, and our college football staff will have multiple pieces coming Thursday and in the ensuing days. The seven-year deal begins in 2023 and runs through the 2029-30 season.
Below, some media-specific thoughts after talking with a number of very happy executives who were part of the negotiating process.
1. CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus said it is his intention as of now to morph the current SEC football broadcast and production teams into Big Ten games. That means Brad Nessler and Gary Danielson will be your Big Ten football booth on CBS.
“Right now, the plan would be to keep the team the same,” McManus said. “I believe that our production, both in front of and behind the camera of college football, is the best in the industry. So I have no interest right now in thinking of changing that.”
2. CBS will continue to air a full schedule of SEC football games in 2022 and 2023 before ESPN’s exclusive deal begins in 2024. Given the overlap, CBS will have a reduced number of Big Ten football games in 2023. (It looks like CBS will telecast seven Big Ten games in 2023.) The Big Ten Championship Game will air on CBS and stream live on Paramount+ in 2024 and 2028.
“From the moment we did not renew our SEC package, our top and only priority was to populate this incredibly highly-rated window with Big Ten football,” said McManus. “We were able to accomplish our goal. I think it’s unprecedented that Big Ten football will be on broadcast television from noon on most Saturdays to 11 at night.”
3. NBC’s only bid was for the primetime window. The company did not bid on the 3:30 p.m. ET slot that ultimately went to CBS. As part of their deal, NBC will get Peacock-exclusive games — the only partner to get a streaming-exclusive package. (CBS will simulcast its games on Paramount+.) NBC’s “Big Ten Saturday Night” will mark the first time ever that Big Ten football will have a dedicated weekly primetime game on a national broadcast network. NBC will air the 2026 Big Ten Championship Game on NBC and Peacock.
“What made the most sense for us was to do the primetime package,” said NBC Sports chairman Pete Bevacqua. “It was the only package we bid on. But what was also incredibly important to us was the Peacock element. To come through with the primetime package and in addition to that, to have eight exclusive games on Peacock every season was really strategically a great success.”
4. Bevacqua said Peacock’s Big Ten football games could air on the same weekend as NBC primetime games. He said NBC will have primetime Big Ten football every week other than the two or three weeks they have a Notre Dame game in primetime.
“When we have the Peacock games, we’ll have them at different times of day, or there’s a possibility when we have a Notre Dame game on primetime, we might also have a Big Ten Peacock game on primetime. We have a little bit more flexibility to work with the conference when those Peacock games will occur. There will be multiple weekends where we’ll have the NBC primetime game and in addition, a Peacock game at a different time of day.”
5. Since I know you are dying to know: Yes, CBS will keep its iconic college football theme song for Big Ten football games.
“That music is so associated with Saturday afternoons and college football,” McManus said. “I think associating that music with the Big Ten will be terrific for both the conference and CBS Sports.”
6. Multiple sources said Amazon was willing to pay more than what CBS and NBC ultimately paid for a spot in either primetime or the 3:30 p.m. ET spot.
7. Multiple sources said NBC and ESPN did not bid on the 3:30 p.m. window.
8. Based on my understanding, Fox will get the No. 1 overall football pick each year, and that pick is for a week rather than for a game (so Fox’s top pick will undoubtedly always be for Michigan-Ohio State week).
Said McManus: “There’s a selection process where all three broadcast partners will get a selection of No. 1 picks (weekly). It’s kind of a complicated matrix, but we’re all going to get high-quality games, and adding USC and UCLA makes the selection process all that much easier to administer since you now have these two national programs that are going to be playing in the Big Ten. The addition of those two schools really cemented the national footprint of the Big 10 coast to coast. There’s going to be plenty of really good games to go around.”
9. As part of its deal, Fox will get upgraded picks for the network’s football selection, added football inventory, and the ability to add games in later windows. Four of the next seven Big Ten Championship Games will air on Fox.
10. On the subject of CBS’ future interest in the Big 12 or Pac-12: “We’re always willing to talk to people,” McManus said. “Right now, we’re totally focused just on the Big Ten in the 3:30 p.m. ET window. We would certainly have conversations if quality games became available in other windows, but we are not actively looking to add any more college football to our schedule. We have the Army-Navy game, which is a huge showcase for us, and we’ve got a lot of college football on CBS Sports Network with the Mountain West and Conference USA.”
11. The Big Ten did not offer ESPN streaming rights to its football inventory, and without a direct-to-consumer component given the importance of ESPN+ for the company’s current and future plans, you can understand why ESPN would be hesitant to pony up millions for what they considered a lesser deal. We’ll know in due time whether ESPN not being involved in the Big Ten is more detrimental to ESPN or the Big Ten.
12. One wise sports television programmer posited to me that ESPN would be wise to cede the noon ET game window to Fox, which is going to load up weekly with a mega-promotion for all things Big Ten, including some premium games. Our programmer suggested ESPN and the SEC load up the 3:30 p.m. ET window and the primetime window with the best games of the week and try to own those seven-plus hours on Saturdays.
13. As part of its deal, NBC gets men’s and women’s college basketball inventory, as well as Olympic sports and golf. The golf inventory is important here given NBC’s Golf Channel ties.
“We have a large part of men’s basketball and women’s basketball very defined each season,” Bevacqua said. “Then over the lifetime of the deal, we will work with the Big Ten on Olympic sports that make sense for them and for us on Peacock.”
14. CBS will increase its Big Ten college basketball inventory starting in 2025, and the deal protects the Big Ten men’s basketball tournament semifinals and championship game, which will remain on Selection Sunday. CBS also has an agreement to air the Big Ten women’s basketball final every year, which has not aired on network television previously.
15. Look for NBC, and not just the NBC Sports Group, to heavily push its football weekends as a corporate marketing play.
“When you think about Notre Dame games in the afternoon going into Big Ten games on primetime for the vast majority of the weekends, and then with ‘Sunday Night Football,’ for us that’s a really powerful college football/NFL lineup,” Bevacqua said. “We want to make Saturday night primetime football on NBC something big and special. We told the Big Ten we’ve proven whether it’s Notre Dame, the NFL, the Premier League, or NASCAR, we’re going to put the entire power of not just NBC Sports but of all NBC behind this to draw attention and to celebrate it across the board.”
16. Bevacqua said NBC will have a dedicated Big Ten football broadcast and production team, and that will include a pregame show. He said his group is currently discussing talent possibilities but it’s way too early for any names. One thing NBC people are very excited about — there will be Saturdays where Notre Dame leads into a Big Ten primetime game which leads into “Saturday Night Live.” That’s a lot of name brands.
LikeLike
4. Bevacqua said Peacock’s Big Ten football games could air on the same weekend as NBC primetime games. He said NBC will have primetime Big Ten football every week other than the two or three weeks they have a Notre Dame game in primetime.
“When we have the Peacock games, we’ll have them at different times of day, or there’s a possibility when we have a Notre Dame game on primetime, we might also have a Big Ten Peacock game on primetime. We have a little bit more flexibility to work with the conference when those Peacock games will occur. There will be multiple weekends where we’ll have the NBC primetime game and in addition, a Peacock game at a different time of day.”
No mention of Friday nights (ignoring holiday weekends). I think they’re still hiding that bit from the fans. Also no discussion of what type of games Peacock will get (OOC vs B10). Can they put a #3 choice on there when ND is in primetime, or is that a tradeoff they don’t get to make (maybe it has to be #4 or lower?)?
8. Based on my understanding, Fox will get the No. 1 overall football pick each year, and that pick is for a week rather than for a game (so Fox’s top pick will undoubtedly always be for Michigan-Ohio State week).
Said McManus: “There’s a selection process where all three broadcast partners will get a selection of No. 1 picks (weekly). It’s kind of a complicated matrix, but we’re all going to get high-quality games, and adding USC and UCLA makes the selection process all that much easier to administer since you now have these two national programs that are going to be playing in the Big Ten. The addition of those two schools really cemented the national footprint of the Big 10 coast to coast. There’s going to be plenty of really good games to go around.”
It’s key that Fox gets the #1 choice of weeks every year (OSU-MI), but not #1 every week. That will keep all of the windows competitive. It will be interesting seeing them try to compare to the SEC (and ACC) schedule and guess ESPN’s counter-programming strategy. Obviously, NBC will use it’s #3 picks on weeks ND plays in primetime against the ACC or other non-B10 teams.
LikeLike
Maybe I missed it but what is NBC doing on Saturdays when ND does NOT have a home football game? Are they showing two Big Ten games or just a Saturday night B1G game with nothing in the afternoon?
LikeLike
Just 1 B10 game when no ND home game, most likely. They’ve gone years with showing no football when there isn’t a ND home game.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Maybe I missed it but what is NBC doing on Saturdays when ND does NOT have a home football game? Are they showing two Big Ten games or just a Saturday night B1G game with nothing in the afternoon?”
They haven’t said anything. But I’d be surprised if each OTA network didn’t have OTA exclusivity built into the deal. Why would CBS allow NBC to compete with them just because ND had a night game? I’d guess they have a Peacock game in the afternoon, and either they have other sports they need to show on NBC (golf or something) or they get some P12/B12 rights to fill those slots. Besides, I don’t think they have enough B10 games to do double-headers since they have 2 games over both Labor Day and Thanksgiving weekends.
LikeLike
Jim Delaney played basketball at UNC and also got his law degree there.
Warren went to Penn, but finished at Grand Canyon. Got his MBA at Arizona St. and law degree at Notre Dame.
Could very easily cause them to look in different directions.
LikeLike
I’ve been telling y’all not to sleep on Arizona State. The school, metro area, and state are bursting at the seems with Midwest transplants.
LikeLike
FWIW Arizona State also has an Ice Hockey team. In 20-21 the had a scheduling agreement with Big 10. Don’t know what happened after that.
LikeLike
Arizona State is interesting just may take a few decades to come on since it’s grown so fast the past 20 years.
LikeLike
Z33k – the state of Arizona will most likely have a larger population than either New Jersey and Virginia by 2030.
Arizona and Washington will only be slightly behind North Carolina in the 2030 census, if current trends continue.
LikeLike
Alan, yeah, I can see the B10 adding ASU eventually.
Probably after the 2030’s, though, and hopefully after ASU actually grows a fanbase.
ASU may be AAU by then too. Maybe with UW?
LikeLike
Alan,
If ASU had any sort of brand, they’d be more attractive. They’ve been mediocre at best since Cooper left in 1987 and nobody watches their games.
They are a strong research school, but their party school reputation doesn’t help either.
LikeLike
At some point the payouts become less important, and the synergies and coherence of the schools becomes the issue. This morning the Fan in Columbus discussed the threat by the UC BoR to cancel the move of UCLA to the B1G. The analysts (a bunch of good old boys who once were athletes) thought this was a ploy to force the B1G to accept Cal.
I thought, so what. Just admit Cal, too, and add in Stanford, Oregon, and Washington. That gives you everything of value on the west coast, even if none of them are kings, other than USC. It gives you lots of 4th period games, mitigates the travel problem, and adds very high quality academic schools will excellent athletic programs in all sports.
ND is not available for a decade, so they are not an issue. They may never be available. So what. A 20 team BiG with a large presence on the west coast is a very high value product by itself, and it gives ND a true nationwide platform, should they ever see reason. Even if ND never came aboard, a B1G from NYC to LA would be a dominant league, much more attractive and much more sellable than a tight, regional SEC.
The obvious plan for decades was to merge, somehow, the PAC and the B1G. This does that without diluting the value of the B1G.
LikeLike
@Colin
Interesting stuff, it’s also why as a bit of time has passed since the “no ESPN” part of the deal has leaked, I’m really not concerned about exposure (for football, basketball is another issue).
Yes, ESPN is still the primary force in the Monday-Friday discussion of college football, but FOX’s Big Noon strategy has really broken their hold on Saturday.
FOX’s Big Noon Kickoff was only a bit behind the ratings of GameDay on average last year, and that is a very young show. Obviously on certain weeks like Michigan-Ohio State, Big Noon Kickoff is ahead.
The reality is that with NBC selling their “comprehensive package” of 2:30 ND football -> Big Ten pre-game/ND post-game -> 7:30 “Big Ten Saturday Night” -> Saturday Night Live and trying to create a Saturday/Sunday Primetime football package, that’s another really strong delineation of exposure of where the Big Ten fits in a weekend NBC package.
You put it all together, and you end up with a really powerful Saturday platform starting with Big Noon Kickoff at a Big Ten game -> Fox’s Noon game -> CBS 3:30 -> NBC’s Big Ten pre-game/ND post-game show -> NBC’s primetime game.
FS1/BTN/Peacock will fill the gaps there.
We’ll have to see how it goes, but I do not think this would be possible without ESPN if FOX hadn’t been so successful with their noon strategy. Without that noon strategy working, I think the Big Ten would’ve gone to ESPN even at a discount (as Delany did with the current 6 year deal).
In a real Power 5 world like in 2017, being on ESPN was an absolute must. In a Power 2 world with that established FOX Noon window and then CBS and NBC windows, I’m not sure you need ESPN on Saturday as the Big Ten.
Obviously, I still think the Big Ten should sell ESPN a basketball package.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see how NBC handles their night games. They’ll want a ton of ads to help pay for the package, but they really don’t want game to run long in the window because SNL needs to start on time. Usually local news just starts late if a game runs past 11 ET. What will NBC do about that? Start games at 7, so they have a 4 hour window (even that may not be enough anymore)? Force local affiliates to show SNL at 11:30? Tape-delay SNL in the east?
LikeLike
I doubt NBC has a problem with starting B10 games at 7PM. ND games could still start at 2:30PM Eastern.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m just wondering.
2:30 and 7 could work well for a ND game then a post-game/pre-game show, but it would mean no 6pm local news slot. I think they need to keep a 30 minute news window available, which is what makes it a tough balance. I guess they hope for more 3.5 hour games, and maybe limit themselves a bit on ad breaks.
LikeLike
Thinking ahead, once the B10 eventually expands to the Big20 (I’d say with ND+Stanford+Cal+Miami), the B10 could have 5 exclusive time slots with 90 conference games.
8:30 (14 games, limited to games played at Eastern time zone schools) The games in Ireland that air in the morning in the US actually have pretty good ratings.
noon (16 games, including Labor Day Sunday and Black Friday)
3:30 (16 games, including Labor Day Sunday and Black Friday)
7PM (16 games, including Labor Day Sunday and Black Friday)
10:30PM (14 games, limited to games played at Central and Pacific time zone schools) They would be 9:30PM local for central time zone schools, and the eastern time zone SEC schools already play 9:15PM games.
BTN picks up the rest.
Labor Day weekend and Thanksgiving weekend get 10 conference games (7 on Saturday, 3 on Labor Day Sunday/Black Friday). The 2 weeks after Labor Day weekend (when most schools schedule their 1 big OOC game) have 5 conference games each. The other 10 weeks have 6 conference games each.
With 5 warm-weather schools, the 15 Northern schools will each visit a warm-weather school once in the last 3 weeks of the season.
LikeLike
I don’t see 8:30 am becoming a regular slot. Too many fans need to drive for hours to get to a game, and now they’d all need a hotel room – many college towns couldn’t handle that. Players need to be up hours before a game to prep (eat, physical therapy, get taped, etc.), and that would completely screw up their body clocks. It works for a game in Europe because it is an afternoon game for the local fans and players.
And before we forget, that would be a 5:30am game for 13% of the conference and the #2 market. That’s a bad idea on a regular basis.
LikeLike
Richardper
LikeLike
Hmm, you’re probably right. But with 20 schools, the B10 will want to sell 5 timeslots of up to 15 games in each. So the 5th choice and timeslot would have to be Friday night. I suppose the B10 could say that the schools that average over 50-60K (UMich, OSU, PSU, UNL, ND, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa, and maybe USC, UCLA, and Miami) don’t have to host Friday night games except on Black Friday, Labor Day weekend and before. Look for the B10 to push for the season to start on Week Zero so that there are always at least 2 bye weeks a season. That would also allow the B10 to include games hosted by UMich, OSU, PSU, UNL, ND, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa on Th and F of weeks 0 and 1 in the Friday night package.
LikeLike
Sounds like a good reason not to have 20 schools. There aren’t 5 good TV windows for CFB, there are 3. The late window is limited in viewers (and thus financial value) because they lose the eastern fans. Friday nights are worse, as the western fans are still at work or driving home at the start and the eastern fans are going to bed by the end. Plus, much of the country values HS football and doesn’t like CFBG games encroaching on its time slot. Coaches also dislike it as it interferes with recruiting visits. And it’s also the worst TV night because people are out.
Besides, even with 20 teams the B10 won’t have 5 good games every week. Those extra windows won’t pay that well, except for maybe a desperate streamer. They can get similar ratings as the second game in an existing window. The B10 has had multiple noon games for a long time. Do the same at 3:30 and primetime. The B10 would have an in-conference game to flip to during TV breaks, halftime, and blowouts. You’ll get the same ratings.
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/should-governing-boards-have-more-say-over-athletic-decisions
A bit of an academic perspective on the UCLA move. A quite different reading of the UC BoR meeting than what athletic reporters took from it.
LikeLike
20 school Big Ten is coming folks:
LikeLike
Every single administrator in the Pac-12 and ACC is going to watch this video now that McMurphy leaked that nugget. No doubt a strategic leak.
McMurphy/Action Network sources have been on point the past couple of months with respect to the Big Ten.
They also were the ones that added FSU/Miami to the list of expansion candidates recently even though the GOR part was unexplained.
I’m giving more and more credence to the notion of the Big Ten going for FSU/Miami based on how good McMurphy’s sources have been (though I think we all assume FSU will choose the SEC).
LikeLike
z33k,
“McMurphy/Action Network sources have been on point the past couple of months with respect to the Big Ten.”
Have they? About what? (I’m not being snarky – serious questions)
I’ve seen all sorts of stuff from all sorts of “sources” and little of it has ended up being both non-obvious and actually happened (so far).
All of this “The B10 is considering X” is meaningless. The B10 may be considering adding UT and TAMU, but it will never happen. Individuals may want, or be considering, certain things, but that doesn’t mean it’s an actual B10 position, or something that the B10 can make happen.
LikeLike
That’s fair, but he did post early about the media rights being announced for example and he has talked directly to coaches/ADs for quotes about these kinds of issues:
‘One Big Ten coach has an idea of how those things will settle.
“We know how this ends,” the coach said. “Twenty or more teams in the Big Ten, 20 or more teams in the SEC. One televised on Fox. One on ESPN. Just like the NFL. And then you have your Big Ten-SEC playoff for college’s Super Bowl.’
‘One Big Ten athletic director echoed Warren’s philosophy regarding the Big Ten’s future.
“This is chess, not checkers,” a Big Ten athletic director said. “We have to do what’s best for us. The old days of college athletics are gone. Checkers is over. The old days of college athletics is over. This is a business.”’
Obviously those are anonymous quotes from around media days, but I’d assume he has some access to the ADs if needed.
You’re also right that the Big Ten is far from monolithic. Some ADs may want some things, others may want other things.
LikeLike
Yeah, for this level of stuff coaches are always the last to know. It’s the presidents that decide issues of this magnitude, based on input from the commissioner and their ADs. I don’t doubt his sources at the coach level and even the AD level. But an AD has no idea what the other 13 presidents are thinking, and frequently schools like NW, OSU, NE, and RU may have very different views of how best to proceed.
LikeLike
I still say the Big Ten made a big error not trying to add FSU after Maryland. FSU clearly wasn’t real happy in the ACC, but at the time the SEC wasn’t interested in the ‘Noles.
Maybe FSU would have said no, but it’s not like the Big Ten had anything to lose.
LikeLike
The B10 certainly has made mistakes (not adding Taxes right after adding PSU; not grabbing FSU when possible). On the whole, though, the conference has played its hand pretty well. Adding PSU, USC, UNL, UCLA, and major media markets on both the East and West Coasts is not a bad haul.
But yes, the “what could have been’s are something to think about. The B10 could be in the top 7 states (NYS close enough) and be a truly national conference now with Texas, FSU, Miami, USC, and UCLA added to PSU.
LikeLike
frug,
Things were a lot different back then. It was hard just to pry UMD out of the ACC, and if another ACC school was invited it would’ve been UVA. UMD only came because they were in financial trouble. The B10 still focused on contiguous states back then, so FSU would’ve required UVA, UNC, and GT too.
In FY2013, B10 members got about $25.9M. The ACC payout was around $20M. The ACC exit fee was raised to about $50M just a few months before UMD announced their departure. FSU was unhappy, but that’s a far cry from being willing to join the B10.
If FSU could have foreseen the coming financial gap, then it might have been up for consideration. The thought was they would join the SEC if they went anywhere (still probably true). Later rumors said maybe the B12 (with Clemson).
My point is, FSU wasn’t an obvious move back then. It’s not nearly as bad as repeatedly rejecting ND in the first half of the 20th century, or saying no to Texas in the 90s when they asked.
LikeLike
This is exactly why hiring an NFL guy as a commissioner has huge downside. He sees the NFL model as ideal in all ways, and doesn’t understand that a large section of the fan base doesn’t. The schools don’t either. I linked up above Gene Smith saying he’d quit before he participated in pay for play. Players are already paid indirectly, and now they can get NIL on top of that. If they become employees, it’s no longer CFB. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things that can/should be done for players, but Warren is just flat wrong about this.
LikeLike
Here’s what’s starting to creep me out – Warren is a Domer. Ohio State AD is a Domer. Purdue AD is a Domer. ACC Commish has two kids attending ND. Is this some kind of conspiracy?
LikeLike
Look at how many UNC people are in positions and how many Syracuse people are in journalism. Maybe ND has a sports management major.
LikeLike
But what if paying players improved recruiting? Like if the Big Ten can take good players away from other non-SEC leagues is that worth it?
LikeLike
No. It’s just AAA football at that point. Who cares about the best AAA baseball teams? Who watches the XFL/USFL? Who watches the D League?
The B10 can already out spend everyone non-SEC on coaches, facilities and athlete support. If that translates into winning, that will help recruiting even more. And they can provide a lot of NIL options with major markets for many schools. What they can’t do is move themselves to the recruiting hotbeds, so they’ll always have some struggles. Unless there’s a draft system, most players will prefer to stay closer to home. Paying would just boost the SEC even higher, because a player can stay in the SE and get paid rather than playing for “free” in the ACC or B12.
LikeLike
The SEC will pay players at some point, Brian, and you won’t be able to stop them.
Only question is whether the B10 stays competitive with the SEC or not.
LikeLike
Why would the SEC start paying? They already dominate recruiting, and it’s not like the schools want to pay for something they get for free now. They can use NIL to win any remaining recruiting battles. History shows that if anybody enjoys getting rich from the free labor of young black men, it’s the south and universities.
And even if they do pay, so what? They can only take so many players. Only OSU would really be impacted from the B10. The B10 doesn’t have to follow suit unless the ACC, B12, and P12 join in, or the courts order it (the much more likely reason the SEC would start paying).
The B10 already isn’t competitive vs the SEC. Paying players would probably increase that gap (based on where the best players come from, and how much the schools focus spending on CFB), not shrink it.
LikeLike
Why did the SEC raise coaches’ salaries to stratospheric levels and assistant coach salaries to NFL levels? Because they’re looking for any sort of edge.
BTW, get with the times. The B10 is more competitive in recruiting now (3 programs in the top 10 of 247’s 2022 team rankings) than back in 2012 (2 programs in the top 10) or 2010 (0 programs in the top 10).
Mostly due to increased money/the BTN.
It seems you want the B10 to emulate Rice.
LikeLike
Brian:
You may want the world to stay static but that doesn’t mean the world will actually stay static.
The only question is if the B10 will be a leader or a follower. In some aspects (starting and monetizing a conference network and monetizing expansion), the B10 has been a leader, but the SEC dragged the B10 kicking and screaming in to paying HC’s NFL salaries and is in the process of dragging the B10 kicking and screaming in to paying assistant coaches NFL salaries.
If NFL guy doesn’t have the B10 paying players first, the SEC will, and the B10 either follows suit or goes the Ivy model route (fat chance).
Oh, and I’m sure Gene Smith has saved up enough to retire by now so if he’s out, we’ll all just wave him goodbye.
LikeLike
Paying players directly is a huge step. A much bigger leap than realignment and massive TV deals.
Giving all scholarship athletes $1,000 or $2,000 as part of their scholarships to cover incidentals, etc., might work. Beyond that, I think that it would in many ways explode college sports. As a starter, every player on every team would need to get that money to comply with Title IX.
If teams get to the point of saying that we will pay the 5 star QB x dollars and the 3 star lineman Y dollars, then it is a minor league, not college football.
LikeLike
Title IX just says schools have to provide the same opportunity. So sure, schools could provide women’s volleyball and softball players a way to earn money as well. Base how much college athletes are paid by how many eyeballs watch their games.
LikeLike
That doesn’t mean there aren’t other things that can/should be done for players, but Warren is just flat wrong about this.
I think this is one of those cases where his real mistake was telling the truth. Like it or not not, it seems inevitable that at some point players at the highest level of college sports are going to become employees at least de facto either by wealthy enough schools trying to gain a recruiting advantage or, far more likely, by court order.
At that point the Big Ten will have to choose between paying players or departing the top level of CFB and MBB and I think we all know which decision the conference would make.
LikeLike
frug,
It’s completely different to do something because new laws/legal decisions require it than to choose to do it voluntarily.
That said, it doesn’t change the fact that it will no longer be CFB, but rather AAA football. And tens of millions won’t care about the change, while millions of others will. I know 7 figure donors who have told OSU they will cut off all donations to the school (including in their wills) the instant they pay a player.
LikeLike
Well, we got the band back together, we might as well go on tour. Looks like we’re in this for the long haul.
LikeLike
Okay so it’s not quite as clear as him saying we’re going to 20, but it’s worth noting we’re nowhere near done. 18/20 (and possibly 22 I believe) are coming.
Question is really just when; next decade this likely all gets sorted out with the last changes dated to 2036 after being announced a couple years before.
I still think the Big Ten should target ACC first and then go back to Pac-12.
But if they think they need schools for USC/UCLA in the same timezone, maybe go for Washington/Stanford or Washington/Oregon now.
LikeLike
z33k,
I read it as him simply saying it was possible. He didn’t even lean towards it being likely (in his statement).
LikeLike
You can’t realistically pursue ACC members until the 2030s. For now, go to 20 with UW/UO/Cal/Stanford (ND is off the table the rest of this decade), then go after ACC schools and the Irish.
LikeLike
Nope, those 4 schools are too dilutive without ND or FSU. Note that the B10 payout for 4 schools, $75mmX4 = $300mm is more than what ESPN bid for the entire 10-school Pac.
Now, I can see the B10 being able to find another $150mm After Dark package (or close to it), which would allow them to add 2 more West Coast schools. But not all 4 of those.
LikeLike
I think the B10 would want to grab ND + FSU (and probably Miami) if possible. So in an ideal world, the B10 would add ND+FSU+Miami+who the Domers want (Stanford). Possibly even 2 of UVa, UNC, Duke, Cal, UW.
But the B10 may not be able to get all they want. So if no FSU, ND+Miami+Stanford+someone (Cal or UW or maybe UVa).
If no ND, FSU+Miami. Maybe 2 others.
If no ND or FSU, the B10 is in a quandry. Possibly Miami+ someone? (UW?)
Hence why the B10 is hesitating to add more Pac schools. They don’t know whether ND or FSU are coming so don’t know which West Coast schools to add yet.
I think the Big20 eventually adds ND, Miami, Stanford, and Cal.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to learn how much an “After Dark” package could be worth as part of the BiG. Could $150m/year for a game every week be low – even for the 4th pick of the week with a restricted pool of teams from which to choose?
Notably, 6 BiG teams are in the central time zone. If only these teams were in the “eligibility” pool (for just one game per year?) and games started between 8:30pm-9:15pm (Central) – with the earlier part of the time range assuming that a streamer like Amazon or Apple carried the games – that might not be so bad for the fans of participating BiG teams. Games could end as early as midnight central time. Of course, under this scenario, an all-west coast or west coast OOC game would have to fill in for games beyond the 6 with a BiG team. And this would require at least 4 west coast teams to be feasible at all, as such teams could be playing 3 after-dark games at home.
Also, what constitutes “exclusivity” for a time window and does NBC have it? If we assume a 6pm Central time start for NBC primetime, would a game starting at 8:30pm be considered to encroach upon exclusivity – especially given that it would be the #4 game each week? And does “exclusivity” only apply to the broadcast networks or to cable (ESPN) and streaming channels as well??
Finally, can you imagine playing after-dark 1 week, and a noon game the next? That is why the Pac teams often have trouble when they travel east.
LikeLike
Eh. Teams have a week to adjust. And I believe games hosted by the Central timezone teams (before the last 4 weeks of the season when it gets cold at night) should be made available for an After Dark package that starts 10PM Eastern (so 9PM Central) . A bunch of SEC teams (including Bama and LSU) have played games kicking off at 9:15PM Eastern.
I don’t think $150mm for 4th choice of a limited number of games is too low, it is within range and enough to make adding 2 more West Coast teams worthwhile. But somebody would have to pony up.
IMO, the B10 would rather have ESPN carry those games than a streamer. A streamer (like Amazon) probably would be willing to pay that amount. Not nearly as sure about ESPN. Hence probably why the B10 is waiting to add the 2 WC teams. They want to see if ESPN is willing to meet the asking price (maybe depending on where the Pac ends up) or if they have to give them up to a streamer.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/uc-regents-to-consider-attempting-to-block-ucla-move-to-big-ten
There’s still a small chance the BoR block UCLA’s move.
So why hasn’t Warren made some sort of oblique statement hinting at the B10 picking a non-UC school instead if UCLA is no longer an option?
Just remind the BoR publicly that the alternative is UCLA also being left behind financially, not them forcing Cal into the B10.
LikeLike
UCLA signed some kind of entry contract into the Big Ten.
That contract was relied upon for the media deals now being signed.
I’m finding it very hard to believe they can just handwave and undo the move. Do the UC Regents even know what’s on that contract? Doesn’t sound like anybody asked about it.
TCU was scheduled to join the Big East but then changed and went Big 12 in 2012 when a spot opened up there.
They had to pay the Big East a $5 million exit fee.
Biggest question for me is: did the Big Ten add any sort of “exit” arrangement to the contract to add enforceability? Did UCLA/USC sign GoRs for the 2024 and beyond period, etc.
If I was the Big Ten, I’d have made USC and UCLA leadership sign grants of rights for 2024 and beyond to match the Big Ten’s current GoR.
Do that before the UC Regents can revoke the ability to sign and/or review such contracts.
Either way trying to stop this sounds like it could be lead to all sorts of other consequences for UCLA.
LikeLike
I don’t think they will try to stop it. More likely they change the rules for future decisions instead. This is just their last chance to bluster. The fact that Newsom didn’t even attend tells you he’s moved on, and so will the BoR.
UCLA would be in that TCU situation, meaning the BoR would cost UCLA a fee plus all that extra B10 money. That’s a large net loss for the UC system.
There has to be some language protecting the networks from UCLA backing out (maybe just a pro rata cut as long as USC stays), and there probably is some clause dealing with the chance of UCLA backing out and having to pay a fee (for legal costs, etc.).
LikeLike
I would guess that the TV negotiations included the possibility of no UCLA, but probably adding Stanford, which I assume would accept, without Cal.
I expect the Regents to bloviate and then go away. If not the fun begins. I wonder if the Regents are dumb enough to think that this would force the B1G to immediately take Cal or take neither school?
UCLA would drop a bunch of sports and blame the Regents. If, as, and when, the PAC implodes, UCLA and Cal could both be independents. If the Board of Regents insists on being involved in further action by UCLA or Cal, it would be very easy for the B1G to say that it is not at all worth the grief of having all negotiations in public, even for UCLA basketball. Maybe UCLA basketball could join the Big East. That would solve travel problems I am sure.
Somehow, I do not see the SEC wanting UCLA, even it if gives them part of LA. The heart of the SEC “deal” seems to be that we are all similar southeastern schools, going from the Atlantic west to Texas. Beyond that, somehow I do not see UCLA fitting in with the good ole boys in the SEC. That also assumes that the SEC would even consider putting up with the CA Board of Regents.
How about the Big 12? Would UCLA fit in there? Maybe, but for a lot less money. The academics at UCLA would commit mass suicide to join the Big 12, but whatever.
This could become a huge political football that blows up in the faces of the Regents. When every fan of every sport cut by UCLA starts screaming at the Regents, it will be interesting.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3520740/2022/08/18/big-ten-college-football-tv-rights/
Stewart Mandel summarizes all the P5 media deals and networks in one place. He correctly notes that the B10 deal is over $8B, not $7B as many headlines read yesterday.
LikeLike
My question exactly.
LikeLike
If you are not following him already, Bob’s Twitter feed is fantastic.
LikeLike
I did see his response to someone who told him he clearly had never negotiated a sports media rights deal. He actually got an apology from him.
LikeLike
I had a good laugh at that exchange.
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2022-08-19/greg-flugaur-minnesota-fan-broke-usc-move-big-ten
The LA Times wrote a profile piece about Greg Flugaur because he and his source tweeted about USC so much earlier than others.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-ad-says-conference
Canzano on the B10 deal. I skipped his points about P12 expansion issues.
• The Big Ten’s deal was reported by some to be a total of $8.4 billion over seven years. That figure sounded inflated to those who work in the industry. I asked two media experts to crunch numbers and deconstruct the deal. They both came back with estimates that place the total value of the deal in the $7.5 billion to $8 billion range. One guessed that the involvement of the Big Ten Network, 60 percent of which is owned by Fox, may be causing the accounting discrepancy.
• The Big Ten signed a seven-year agreement in this round of media rights. Why seven years and not eight or 10? Because it gets the conference back to market before the SEC. That was apparently important to Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren.
• The first year of the Big Ten’s new media rights deal won’t include USC and UCLA. It will just be 14 universities. That first-year figure is estimated by Bob Thompson, the former Fox Sports Network executive, to fall well short of the $1 billion-a-year figure that has been floated for months. The first year payout will more likely be around $700 million to $750 million.
I’d note that part of that is because CBS is carrying a half-slate of games, and not in their preferred window. Also, people were always talking averages and not year 1 numbers.
• The annual distribution to the Big Ten jumps over $1 billion in 2024 with the additions of USC and UCLA. Then, the deal kicks up approximately four percent annually. This allows the media partners to start at a lower payment, then raise their prices for carriage and advertising over the length of the deal. Schools get a little more on the back end. Everyone wins.
How do they know it’s 4%? Just assuming based on past deals? Could it be higher (due to current inflation rate)?
• A lot was made of the Big Ten including an “escalator” clause in its newest deal. It raised speculation about Oregon and Washington and presumably left the door open for additional members to join the conference. But Thompson, who negotiated hundreds of these deals in his career, told me those clauses have been around since 2010.
“We started putting them in because schools were coming and going,” he said. “The thing is that there’s no set dollar figure. It’s basically just a requirement to negotiate in good faith on an adjustment to the right deal. I’ve never seen one actually be invoked.”
LikeLike
Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers trying to get back some of the money from their reduced shares?
I’d point out that all 3 are technically full share members as of last year, but Maryland owes around $100 million back to the conference and Rutgers owes $40 million.
Uh, let’s just say I’ll be a bit surprised if something comes out of this; they all signed those deals a decade+ ago.
LikeLike
“Obviously the conference, in the financial integration for USC and UCLA, made the decision that it was in the best interest of the conference to bring them in as full-share members. Ourselves, Maryland and Nebraska came in under a financial integration model and there were things done then in order to try to make sure that we could be competitive. In the interest of fairness and equity, the conference, along with the presidents and chancellors, are taking a look at Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska specifically to make sure that in this new (16-team) world that we have that some level of fairness and equity gets returned to Rutgers and those two schools.”
From the article.
LikeLike
Documents obtained by NJ Advance Media show Rutgers already has paid back $10 million from the $48 million loan over the past two years.
Asked whether he sees the potential for the Big Ten to forgive the remainder of the loan, Hobbs said: “That I would not see.”
Still, he said there’s potential for Rutgers to receive a larger percentage of the Big Ten’s annual revenue stream in the next four years.
Well sure, if the total goes up then being down a few million each year would be a higher percentage. But everyone took the COVID hit and doesn’t have a lot of spare cash to give to those 3.
“Obviously those loans were real both for ourselves and for Maryland,” Hobbs said. “There’s going to be an examination of that in the context of this new agreement and the new revenue flows. I wouldn’t want to speculate on the amount of that adjustment. (The Big Ten presidents) recognize that there is an equity and fairness component to it.”
I suppose it can’t hurt to ask, but the B10 shouldn’t give them anything. They agreed to deals. RU came from nothing to a P2 conference. Why wouldn’t they need to buy into the BTN? We’ve done the math to show that USC/UCLA pay for their BTN shares by raising the total payout. RU was free to find math to show that the same was true for them (same for UMD). Part of their problem is the order of expansion matters for this. 14 to 16 is less dilution than 12 to 14. And USC’s CFB brand carries a lot more value than those of RU or UMD do. NE could’ve made a case if they’d come in and won CFP games or something, but they’ve barely been above 0.500. And RU and UMD have been hideous.
They can restructure their payouts again if they want, shifting money from future earnings.
ESPN.com reported the new Big Ten media rights deal won’t result in a financial windfall immediately but is expected to substantially increase once UCLA and USC join the fold in 2024. The report projected the Big Ten to eventually distribute between $80 million to $100 million per year to its 16 members.
That should go a long way toward decreasing Rutgers’ annual debt, but Hobbs said it won’t completely erase it.
“It’s a remarkably complex time in college athletics both financially and legally,” Hobbs said.
If even $100M per year from the conference won’t eliminate their deficits, that’s a RU problem. Sell some damn tickets and get your donors on the phone. This isn’t rocket science.
LikeLike
The other big factor is Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland joined the Big Ten when there was 18-20 years left on the BTN contract and the Big Ten owned 49% of it.
USC/UCLA are joining the Big Ten when the BTN contract has 8 years left and the Big Ten owns 39% of it, and after years of cord cutting.
Just 2 completely different situations; the conference’s BTN stake was worth way more in 2012-2014 than it will be in 2024.
At most I can foresee a little bit of Maryland/Rutgers’ debts being forgiven and a similar small portion of money being forward to Nebraska.
But that’s very much a “maybe” thing and I don’t think that’s an easy discussion.
Maryland was getting huge distributions the first 4-6 years they were in the conference; both schools’ debts are just forwarded distributions.
LikeLike
z33k: “the conference’s BTN stake was worth way more in 2012-2014 than it will be in 2024.”
z33k, I think you’re savvy on much of this stuff but not on that assessment. Adding USC/UCLA will create a lot more BTN content (I’m still hoping for beach volleyball) and I think the value of that BTN content will also increase. There is gonna be two more time zones watching all of those men/women hoops, volleyball, whatever.
LikeLike
@Colin
That was a mechanical statement about time periods:
BTN contract in 2014 had 18 years remaining on it which means 18 years of profit payouts. Also it was at peak subscribership early on in the 60-70 million range.
BTN contract in 2024 has 8 years remaining on it which means 8 years of profit payouts. Also it’s around 50 million in subscribership (admittedly at higher rates though).
My point is simply that 18 years of payouts back in 2014 was worth way more than 8 years of payouts in 2024.
BTN contract was probably worth around $1.6-2 billion when those 3 joined and bumped up its subscriber numbers. Big Ten owned 49% of that.
BTN contract is probably worth around $800-900 million over last 8 years with USC/UCLA, Big Ten owns 39% of that.
Keep in mind BTN contract expires in 2032 and has to be renewed.
So yeah that’s a giant difference between 2014 and 2024 if we’re saying Big Ten’s BTN ownership value has fallen from $800+ million to under $400 million due to 10 years falling off the contract.
LikeLike
Of course, don’t get me wrong; the BTN contract is likely to be renewed.
But as of now, there’s only 8 years of payouts left on that contract as of 2024; it’s worth considerably less than in 2014 when there were 18 years left.
These contracts are just profit/payout schemes. Big Ten gets back all of its third tier rights from BTN in 2032 (though I think we all assume that the contract will be extended).
But the ownership % may have to go back to 50-50 or something else may have to change, we shall see I guess.
LikeLike
Colin, I like volleyball, but even as the 3rd-most watched sport on BTN, the most watched volleyball game ever on BTN drew 375K viewers.
So the most viewed volleyball games are comparable to mid-week MACtion games.
The most watched MBB game ever (a B10 tourney game, so not resular season) on BTN drew 1.19 viewers.
MBB draws as well as a good G5 football matchup.
As you can imagine, the MAC and AAC do not get a lot of TV revenue. These days, BTN revenue is swamped by tier 1 & 2 deals.
LikeLike
Richard, we’re talking beach volleyball here . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E18TCNpgOjk
LikeLike
I think BVB will be on BTN+ mostly, and maybe on Peacock. The B10 will have all of 3 teams now.
An interesting question is what conference USC and UCLA will play in. I’m guessing the P12 won’t want them anymore. Either the Big West or WCC would make sense for them. BW has all the other UC schools and Cal Poly, but the WCC has the other power programs in CA (LMU & Pepperdine).
NE is independent. Maybe the OVC doesn’t want them? NE mostly plays out west already, so maybe they could also join the same conference as USC and UCLA? Maybe BTN+ could become the official streamer for that BVB conference, getting all of them some exposure.
LikeLike
None of them deserve anything. The LA schools added more to the B10 revenue than their shares of BTN diluted everyone else, and included a huge market and a king CFB brand plus a prince. It’s equivalent to NE + RU + UMD all at once, and it’s coming after Fox bought back another 10% of BTN.
BTN 2021 = $1B, so assuming that’s roughly constant
B10 share of BTN 2020 = $490M = $35M per school
B10 share of BTN 2022 = $390M = $27.9M per school
B10 share of BTN 2024 = $390M = $24.4M per school
So the newbies cost each B10 school $3.5M in BTN value, assuming BTN gained no value by expanding the footprint to include LA. I think we can safely assume that’s not true, as millions of people get switched to the footprint rate for BTN subscriptions and more viewers increases ad rates. Plus, B10 schools earn profit shares and a cut of the ad revenue, so that extra BTN revenue will come back to them in one or both ways.
We know the media deals are going up by a lot more than $2.5M per year as well, so the LA schools more than pay for themselves. Plus BTN is a shrinking share of B10 media rights now than it was back then.
LikeLike
It’s falling every year though.
Every year that passes is another year to expiration.
That’s why the BTN value has fallen so much since 2014 (look at my math above).
BTN contract was worth closer to $2 billion when there was 20 years left on it.
In 2020, it was closer to $1 billion with 12 years left.
When USC/UCLA join, there’s only going to be 8 years left. The profit payouts over 8 years are maybe worth $800 million.
Every year, BTN pays out around $100 million in profit and 1 year gets removed from the contract, so the value falls.
The BTN contract is worth $0 in 2032 because all rights revert back to the Big Ten.
So yeah Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland joined a BTN contract where the Big Ten owned 49% of a network worth closer to $2 billion. USC/UCLA are joining a contract closer to 39% ownership of $800 million.
LikeLike
z33k,
I was just holding it constant for the pre-COVID to adding LA schools period to simplify the math. The 10% sale and dilution math was enough, I didn’t want to deal with annual value changes too.
LikeLike
Lets be real. They got the money from them because they could. Nobody has paid anywhere near what those 3 paid to get in a conference. One year Rutgers made $43 million less than the full members. Doubt anyone has ever paid $43 million total. For all the blather about equity in the BTN, its all about power. Big 10 had it with Rutgers and Maryland and used it. Nebraska just didn’t negotiate a good deal.
LikeLike
But it’s like any deal, the Big Ten showed the schools the projected payouts, showed them what their buy in period would be, and they signed contracts.
The payouts ended up being a bit higher than expected, and the payouts in the 2020s appear to be well higher than expected.
But were their deals unfair?
It’s no different from the ACC or SEC being in undermarket deals for a period of time. These things are based on the information you have at the time.
If you sign a deal during a major recession, that’ll look different than a deal that you sign during a period of very high inflation.
Timing is everything in this business.
LikeLike
Nebraska was unfair, but that was their president’s fault Rutgers and Maryland, I don’t know. The reduction they got was really extreme. But they came in and made more with that reduction than they would have staying. Its the hypocrisy of claiming the Big 10 is the equitable conference and that this was justified, while other conferences were unequal. It was simply power. The SEC didn’t need to let Missouri in with no entrance fee. They probably could have got something from Texas A&M. But they didn’t. They didn’t even reduce basketball credits except for the first year. Colorado had one deal with the Pac 12. Utah didn’t have the power and didn’t get as good a deal. I didn’t read anything about it at the time, so I don’t think the Big East schools had any significant fees to get in the ACC. TCU and WVU got reductions, but I think the Big 12 shortened the period when the contract went up significantly and the fees were more than anticipated.
LikeLike
Bullet
Only thing I’d say about Maryland and Rutgers is alongside those buy ins, they got interest free advances on their payouts.
Maryland got $150 million in advanced payouts that’s interest free.
The value of that loan is likely >$100 million in foregone interest.
They’re paying back $140 million received in 2014-2019 with a considerably less valuable $140 million from 2020 to 2028.
Look at inflation, realistically that $140 million from 2014-2019 is worth $240-260 million from 2020 to 2028.
Especially given the high inflation we’re in right now, just makes that loan look better and better for Maryland.
Same was true for Rutgers’ loans.
LikeLike
Bullet, you keep saying UNL negotiated badly when they ended up far better in the B10 than they would have been outside the B10 (I doubt the SEC would want the Huskers). So I think they negotiated amazingly well considering that these days, it’s unlikely that the B10 would add Big Red.
LikeLike
Nebraska asked for a deal with a floor what they made in the Big 12. Well the Big 12 got a big increase. So they fell 10s of millions behind what they would have had in the Big 12. Brian did these same numbers a few weeks ago-his numbers were slightly different, but pretty close. Further, Nebraska would have made money on Tier 3. For these purposes, I am assuming $2 million a year. It probably would have been more.
Exit fee -9.2 million
2011-12 -7 million (14 vs. 19 for Big 12+ 2 Tier 3) and -10 vs. Big 10 full
2012-13 -8.6 million (15.4 vs. 22 +2 Tier 3) and -10.5 vs. Big 10 full
2013-4 -8.1 million (16.9 vs. 23 + 2 Tier 3) and -11.1 vs. Big 10 full
2014-5 -8.9 million (18.7 vs. 25.6 + 2 Tier 3) and -13.3 vs. Big 10 full
2015-6 -10.4 million (22 vs. 30.4 + 2 Tier 3) and -12.8 vs. Big 10 full
2016-7 -0.5 (36.3 vs. 34.8 + 2 Tier 3) and even vs. Big 10 full
So at the point Nebraska got full distributions, they had paid in $57.7 million in entry fees and they were $52.7 million behind where they would have been staying in the Big 12. That’s a bad deal. They only broke even after 2020-21. And again, that’s assuming they had very little Tier 3. More likely they would have $5-$7 million like Oklahoma. That would put them $71 million to $83 million behind staying in the Big 12.and would still be behind 10 years later.
LikeLike
bullet,
You say this same line of BS every time.
“Nobody has paid anywhere near what those 3 paid to get in a conference.”
Nobody else has joined a conference that owns part of their own network which pays them a share of ad revenue plus profit sharing on top of the rights fee. There is no comparable situation, so stop pretending there has been.
“One year Rutgers made $43 million less than the full members.”
Click to access CSS_Rutgers_Final_Report.pdf
RU joined under an agreement to keep getting paid what they were projected to make in the BE/AAC at the time for 6 years. NE and UMD also got that deal. RU and UMD chose to move future money forward, and even take some loans, to get more money sooner. Part of the problem is that all 3 joined in the middle of an ongoing TV contract. Also, the B10 members took all the risk in launching BTN. The newbies bought into a known and highly successful entity. USC and UCLA are joining when a new deal starts, and that matters.
RU analysis
Initial agreement:
Year Distribution
2015 $8,645,986
2016 $9,043,606
2017 $9,442,178
2018 $9,841,721
2019 $10,242,246
2020 $10,643,801
Initial time shifting ($10M):
2019 +$3M
2020 +$7M
2021 -$6M
2022 -$4M
Second time shifting ($38M):
2018 +$14M
2019 +$13M
2020 +$11M
To be repaid from 2021-2026 (exact amounts per year unknown).
Actual distributions:
Year Total Distribution
2015 $8,645,986 (vs about $32.4M)
2016 $9,043,606 (vs about $34.8M)
2017 $9,442,178 (vs about $38.5M)
2018 $23,841,721
2019 $26,242,246
2020 $28,643,801
Plan as of 2019 report:
Year Full B10 distr. RU distr.
2018* $50,000,000 $23,841,721
2019 $51,500,000 $26,242,246
2020 $53,045,000 $28,643,801
2021 $54,636,350 $43,705,600
2022 $56,275,441 $46,029,566
2023 $57,963,704 $48,941,204
2024 $59,702,615 $50,970,215
2025 $61,493,693 $53,055,193
2026 $63,338,504 $56,178,379
2027 $65,238,659 $65,238,659
RU reaches full payout in 2027 because they chose to shift funds around.
Show me the year RU made $43M less.
They would’ve made $43M less in 2020, but they didn’t. They shifted forward money once the new TV deal started.
“Doubt anyone has ever paid $43 million total.”
See above. Apples and oranges.
“For all the blather about equity in the BTN, its all about power.”
Repeating BS doesn’t make it any more true.
The B12 had a buy-in for new members with no asset to buy into. Maybe that was all about power.
LikeLike
What is a line of bs is thinking the BTN justifies it. And if it did, why do UCLA and USC get in free but Rutgers doesn’t? Rutgers brought in full rates in New York and New Jersey.
Rutgers got $11.7 million in 2017-18. Full members got $54 million.
In 2014-15 they got $10 million while full members got $32 million.
In 2019-20 I’m not 100% sure, but I think they got $11.4 and continuing got $54.3.
LikeLike
A lot of golf clubs have initiation fees and they can be waived from the right applicant if the club thinks the new member brings enough prestige, etc. That is the case with USC/UCLA versus Maryland, Rutgers, and Nebraska. All knew going in what fees the B10 would charge them to join the club. If they object to the decision, then they can resign just like one of the golf club members can. In either case they are not getting their initiation fees refunded. After giving members time to think about the benefits of staying vs. going there are not many resignations.
As far as the B10 charging more it is to get in a better club. Augusta National charges up to $500K (probably a lot higher than your local golf club) and like the B10 it is by invitation only. The B12 had much lower entry fees but how many B12 members would not pay what the B10 asked of Nebraska or more if they got an invite?
There were quite a few in Nebraska that second guessed the B10 move and deal. However, it was made immediately after Colorado announced it was going to the PAC and Nebraska knowing they were left behind in the proposed 6 team PAC expansion. Missouri (also left out of PAC deal) was seen as competition for the single B10 slot. If Nebraska refused what the B10 offered the B10 could have gone to Missouri as a backup. It is the flagship in a larger state that is more contiguous to the B10 with AAU membership was not in jeopardy to offset Nebraska’s better brand. Any doubts about the move were extinguished when Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving for the SEC.
Just because the SEC did not charge Missouri an entry fee does not mean it did not deserve one. That might have been the greatest gift to a school in realignment. If the SEC had required an initiation fee equal to what Nebraska paid the B10 and Missouri stayed in the B12 rather than pay it that would now be considered one of the most boneheaded moves in conference realignment up there with BE refusing PSU, GT and Tulane leaving SEC, FSU refusing to join SEC, etc. Missouri rode the coattails of A&M creating a pair that was additive to the SEC payout (sort of like UCLA and USC). The SEC never had an entry fee and saw no reason to charge one. However, that does not mean SEC membership is not worth a fortune. I expect the remaining B12 members would pay what Nebraska did or more if it was a condition for SEC membership. Unfortunately, like Augusta, SEC membership is by invite only and I do not foresee any coming their way.
LikeLike
bullet,
“What is a line of bs is thinking the BTN justifies it.”
It’s worth roughly $1B, based on Fox paying $100M for 10% of it. Where did that value come from? How can shares of that not have value?
“And if it did, why do UCLA and USC get in free but Rutgers doesn’t? Rutgers brought in full rates in New York and New Jersey.”
We’ve literally posted the math here multiple times in the past few weeks. I posted some of it today. Between the 10% Fox bought back, the reduced dilution going from 14 to 16 vs previous expansions, and the value added by the LA schools in both market and brand value, they more than pay for their share.
B16 new deal ~ $1.15B = $71.9M/school (reported average)
LA2 deal value ~$200M = $100M/school (estimated by experts)
B14 new deal ~ $0.95B = $67.9M/school (by subtraction)
Expansion gained schools $4.0M annually
BTN = $1B (based on Fox price)
B14’s share of BTN was $490M = $35M/school
B14’s share of BTN now $390M = $27.9M/school
B16’s share of BTN $390M = $24.4M/school
Dilution cost schools $3.5M
That’s a net gain for everyone in 1 year. Even if the B14 new deal value was $1B even, it would be a slight gain.
That’s ignoring the dropping value of a BTN share due to the contract length shortening, or any potential increase in BTN value from adding the LA schools.
RU brought zero brand value, plus they were getting a larger slice of the pie. USC is a king and UCLA a prince, so they both add more valuable games to the TV package, which adds value for everyone. RU brought worthless games (sorry Bernie, but 76-0 doesn’t draw viewers).
Plus, it’s the start of a new TV deal and not the remaining years of a previous one.
“Rutgers got $11.7 million in 2017-18.”
RU’s own internal report says otherwise. I’m going to have to take their word for it over yours. When the B10 money jumped with the new TV deal, RU also jumped up by moving some of that money forward interest free.
LikeLike
The B10 should offer the money on the condition of immediate and unconditional resignation from the conference. Most conferences have bylaws that require the members to meet their financial obligations to be in good standing. Failure to repay debts is usually a reason for booting a member from the conference. The B10 lawyers should remind these schools of the bylaws. This may be an opportunity to correct some prior expansion mistakes. I doubt the B10 takes any action, but I would not want to have any financial dealings with a party that tries to renegotiate a deal 10 years later based on value other members provided.
If Nebraska wants back in the B12 and Maryland back in the ACC (if it could get an invite) the B10 should let them go. I am sure the AAC will take Rutgers back.
LikeLike
Bit of a major overreaction, perhaps Little8. I do not think that RU, UMD or UNE should get anything back, but no harm in asking or trying. There could be political pressures within states requiring the request, et. So they ask, the answer is no and everyone is happy.
By the way Little8, I am sure that you recognize that at least the loss of RU and UMD will end the new TV deals. The networks were openly thrilled at the coast to coast nature of the B1G, so loss of NYC, NJ, Baltimore, DC, and the State of MD, might impact that coast to coast league.
Here, for example, is a quote from CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus
“The addition of those two schools really cemented the national footprint of the Big 10 coast to coast. There’s going to be plenty of really good games to go around”.
How would a coast to coast league look with no teams on the east coast? Not much of a national footprint.
And the B1G is the only college football league that can ever be coast to coast, because there is no other team in NYC. Maybe your would suggest that the B1G could pick up Boston College and say that replaces NY.
You may be thinking of Syracuse, 250 miles from NYC and with 55,000 alumni in the greater NYC area, whatever that means from a Cuse website. Rutgers has 40,000 students and hundreds of thousands of alumni in the NYC market. Penn State is closer to NYC and has more alumni and fans there than Syracuse.
You apparently still have not figured out what Jim Delany realized years ago, controlling the NYC and DC markets was very important long term.
As far as Rutgers going back to the AAC, because of the genius of Jim Delany, I would imagine other conferences realize that have NYC in the league is worth something substantial.
LikeLike
One more related comment. I do not think that Rutgers, Maryland, or Nebraska even deserve much of an explanation. They all made deals that were reasonable at the time. Could they have made better deals? Maybe.
Since then the decisions are no longer reasonable, they were brilliant.
That is particularly true for Maryland, which in theory could have been perfectly happy in the ACC. They gave up some history and hit a grand slam financially and in other ways.
They should all just be happy and shut up.
LikeLike
Rutgers and Maryland are valuable additions to the Big Ten. Huge schools, great academics, prime location, huge alumni bases where the Big Ten’s are.
It’s fine imo for them to ask the Big Ten about the prior additions’ buy in situations.
Regardless all 3 schools benefited as much as the rest.
The brand value and profile raising that Rutgers and Maryland got for example is immeasurable.
They got/get billions of additional exposure, especially as we move from an AQ6/Power 5 world down to a Power 2.
Fewer spots at the table, fewer and more valuable seats.
This is just a minor thing, Rutgers and Maryland may get a bit of debt cancelled; Nebraska might get slightly higher payouts for a few years.
No harm, no foul. We all move on together.
The Big Ten benefits massively in being coast to coast with massive alumni bases across the US.
LikeLike
Rutgers, Nebraska, and Maryland asking for more money makes them look greedy especially given the realignments over the past 18 months. If they truly view the glass as half empty and are going to hold a grudge about the lower payments they agreed to for the first few years in the B10 than maybe they should move on. The alternative is to have an attitude adjustment. All 3 schools should look at what they have done over the last 10 years and realize they are very lucky to have wound up in the P2. They are about to get huge distributions compared to the conference mates they left behind, even using the ACC as the baseline for both Maryland and Rutgers.
The B10 is not going to pay these schools any money. However, if Washington or Oregon got a B10 invite conditioned on a school resigning I am sure those schools would pay to take the B10 slot. Phil Knight would probably whip out his checkbook and write a $200M+ check if he could buy Oregon’s way into the B10 (which he cannot).
LikeLike
Yeah, NE being 0.468 in B10 play is the best of a sorry bunch. UMD is 0.288 and RU an embarrassing 0.171 (plus some scandals).
The request would sound better coming from a NE team that was going 9-3 regularly, or UMD and RU being 6-6 sorts of teams.
LikeLike
How is it greedy to ask for the same deal the newest members got?
The Big 10 has been greedy. They talk about being egalitarian, but haven’t been that way with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. They haven’t been that way in gutting other conferences.
There is absolutely nothing noble about the Big 10. They are a mercenary business operation just like everyone else. But they are more powerful and consequently, have done more damage to other schools and conferences. They destabilized college football in 2009 with their hunt for new members and are doing it now. It is solely for their interest and no noble purpose.
We could figure out in 20 years the USC/UCLA move was extremely bad for the sport in the long run. I figure USC and UCLA made the first move, but the Big 10 could have still said no to having the athletes fly all over the country.
LikeLike
bullet,
“How is it greedy to ask for the same deal the newest members got?”
Because they signed a deal and the B10 lived up to their side of it. Now they want to keep what they got from the B10, but they also want a rebate on the price.
“They talk about being egalitarian, but haven’t been that way with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.”
The B10 doesn’t do unequal revenue distributions for full members and never did – unlike most major conferences. The B10 even shared part of gate revenue to help the smaller schools.
“They haven’t been that way in gutting other conferences.”
What does being egalitarian within the conference have to do with adding schools that request entry? When did the B10 ever say they wouldn’t add valuable schools? The B10 has been more open and direct about it than anyone. Are they supposed to say no?
“There is absolutely nothing noble about the Big 10.”
Which is relevant to anything in what way?
“They are a mercenary business operation just like everyone else. But they are more powerful and consequently, have done more damage to other schools and conferences.”
Have they? Nobody has done more damage than OU and UGA with their lawsuit. The SEC raided the SWC, and started the push to 12 for a CCG. UT drove the B12 to explode and CU wanted to join the P10. The SEC raided the B12 again and upped the money game yet again, but somehow the B10’s lesser response is worse? Has the B10 left behind schools like Rice and SMU?
“They destabilized college football in 2009 with their hunt for new members and are doing it now. It is solely for their interest and no noble purpose.”
The B10 sat at 11 schools since 1990. When UT inquired about joining, the B10 politely said they were busy integrating PSU. The B10 reached out to ND multiple times, and it was known. So the CFB world knew the B10 was considering expansion ever since they added PSU.
They watched the SEC expand by raiding the SWC and add a CCG and waited. They saw FSU join the ACC and they waited. They watched the SWC implode with the remnants morphing into the B12, killing off the Big 8 as well, and they waited. The B10 watched the ACC decimate the BE, and they waited.
Then a few years after launching BTN, they announced they were considering expansion again. They could’ve done it all behind closed doors, but thought being open was better. The P10 announced they were also considering expansion not long after. It was more than 6 months later when the B10 added NE and the P10 added CU. One reason NE left was to improve their academic reputation. Another was for increased revenue and stability. A third was to get away from UT and how they dominated the B12 politically. The B10 didn’t take 3 B12 schools when they could have, nor did they come back a second time like the SEC did.
UT and several others flirted with the P12, and TAMU flirted with the SEC. Then Dan Beebe said the B12 would allow UT’s long desired LHN, and things settled down for a few months. But the LHN was the last straw, and TAMU left with MO for the SEC. The B10 had nothing to do with any of that.
Is the B10 destabilizing things, or is the media right now? What could the B10 do or say that would stop the internet and media from speculating wildly? If Warren said the B10 is done expanding, people would laugh it off and claim he has to say that. People are obsessed with getting megaconferences and refuse to believe it isn’t happening now, now, now.
When has realignment ever been anything other than done in self-interest? Why else would anyone ever do it? The schools choose to leave their current situations, so they think it’s in their self-interest. Is the conference suppose to treat them like children who can’t decide what’s best for themselves?
“We could figure out in 20 years the USC/UCLA move was extremely bad for the sport in the long run.”
Yes. Or that it was great for it. Or that it had no major impact. The same could be said for UT and OU moving. Or any other major realignment.
“I figure USC and UCLA made the first move, but the Big 10 could have still said no to having the athletes fly all over the country.”
Athletes already fly all over. Look at some of the OOC trips schools choose. The ACC stretches from Boston to Miami to Louisville. The SEC will stretch from Austin to Gainesville to Lexington. The P12 is from Seattle to Tucson to Boulder. The B12 will reach from Provo to Orlando to Cincinnati.
The UCLA report lays out how light the travel burden will actually be. Only 8 of their teams will face significant changes (~ 25% of their athletes), and part of that will be handled with more charter flights and hotel stays. The worst they noted was an extra 24 hours over an entire season. And that’s only if those teams play in the B10 rather than a western conference, and assuming no special scheduling adjustments. In a world with online courses and wifi on airplanes, it isn’t the same problem it would’ve been a decade ago.
LikeLike
For non revenue sports, the ACC actually stretches from South Bend to Miami to Boston.
I though it was pretty rich when Swarbrick said he was concerned about travel for ND non revenue sport athletes when ND chose to make their non revenue athletes travel farther rather than joining the B10 to alleviate travel for them.
Also, Bullet, the B10 adding the LA schools destroys college football as we know it but the SEC adding the RRR schools didn’t? That’s also rich.
LikeLike
“Also, Bullet, the B10 adding the LA schools destroys college football as we know it but the SEC adding the RRR schools didn’t? That’s also rich.”
I think he’s absolutely right. One move reestablished old rivalries (Texas vs. A&M, Texas vs. Arkansas, and to a much lesser extent OU vs. Mizzou and A&M); the other move destroyed the granddaddy of them all. Texas/OU to the SEC strengthened CFB tradition/history, USC/UCLA to the B1G knifed it in the back and spit on the corpse.
LikeLike
Little8, you either have a very vivid imagination, or you enjoy creating strawmen because it is so much fun to knock them down.
First, you wanted to agree to give NE, UMD, and RU money provided that they immediately resign from the league. You were in such a hurry to get rid of schools, you were and still are apparently ready to tear up the new $8 billion contract.
Now you have concluded that the schools need an attitude adjustment because of the grudge that they will hold. Where exactly did the grudge part come from, other than your imagination? Why an attitude adjustment? They ask, the B1G either says no or throws them a little bone and the issue is over either way.
Personally I think that the answer from the league should be no money, but I would not find a small bone objectionable.
It is possible that this request for money is really aimed at getting slightly better TV slots under the new deal? Maybe RU and MD see themselves as getting really lousy slots (which they may very well deserve), so they have asked for financial relief, which will quickly be exchanged for at least one better TV slot every year. Certainly no one seems to know much, unless you have inside information.
Over many moons, I have been involved in enough deals where a few years in, one party or another asks for an adjustment. Either it happens or it does not. Those were not inherently due to attitude problems or grudges. Sometimes circumstances change and people ask. Have deals exploded because of a disagreement over modifications? Sure, but not that often.
If the parties are honest with each other, it usually works out. I always gave my clients the advice that the people with whom you are dealing is more important than the paperwork. If you cannot trust the other person, there is probably not enough paper to take care of that. If you can, things will generally work out.
This is much more analogous to an employee asking the employer for a raise. The employer says yes or no and life goes on.
Who is holding a grudge? From your reactions, I am just wildly guessing that you were against adding RU and MD and have not gotten over it. You are projecting your own grudge to those schools. You almost seem bitter that RU and MD are in the B1G. Maybe NE also, but I am not sure.
Maybe the team that you root for was left in the cold at one point, ergo the name “Little8” and you have not gotten past that.
Obviously I have no idea what is happening, but you are really over the top angry over this minor request by the three schools.
LikeLike
I have no issue with Rutgers or Maryland even now since this is just internet chatter. If this is pursued to arbitration, etc. against the B10 that would be a problem. You do realize this is a request to claw back the money paid over the past 8 years from the 11 pre-2000 members. The B10 did not divide the money 14 ways and keep a slush fund. No matter how it is done the effect is to take money away from Michigan, OSU, PSU, MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa (among others) to pay it to Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska.
More than half the value of the new contract is from the first 3 schools (4 with USC) with another significant chunk from the other 3. I am sure they would never think of leaving the B10, but there are 10 schools on the west coast that were saying the same about USC a few months ago (that goes under don’t bite the hand that feeds you). The B10 was represented in 13 (10 conference) of the 25 college regular season games in 2021 that drew 5 million or more viewers. Of those one or more of Michigan, OSU, or PSU were in 85% of the games. Wisconsin was in the other 2. FYI: SEC 10, ACC 3, B12 2, PAC 1 (OOC games counted in both conferences so does not add to 25).
Rutgers contract value is primarily in the 3rd tier BTN rights. The B10 did a good job extracting higher carriage rates from NJ and NY. To acknowledge this financial contribution to the conference and keep the money flowing almost all Rutger games can only be seen on the BTN. The only OTA selection was Michigan-Rutgers. Excluding the 3 kings Rutgers averaged 344K viewers per game. The BTN puts a lower maximum on viewers, but NE-IA drew 1.95 million. Rutgers-OSU and UM-MD both drew 1.2 million viewers, so Rutgers is still well below what is possible on BTN. The Rutgers-Maryland game only drew 158K viewers nationwide despite the large home markets claimed by both teams. With such poor ratings for Rutgers the B10 may find out the secret of addition by subtraction. Although the total contract value will be lower the per school payout may be higher without Rutgers. Since Rutgers is not getting selected in picks 1-4 it is not adding value in the new contracts except maybe for Peacock streaming and of course BTN. The net is now that Rutgers is receiving the same payout as Michigan, OSU, and PSU they should not be asking for more and are definitely not worth it. Now the three schools I mentioned are worth much more than they are receiving.
Maryland averaged 812K viewers with the same kings’ exclusions, still low for the B10. Helped by OTA coverage of MSU and ESPN for WV. Also got 3 games on FS1/ESPN. Nebraska had a terrible year on the field going 3-9, winning only the 2 buy games and NW. However, the brand value is still there. Three OTA games all exceeded 3M viewers and 5 FS1/ESPN2/BTN games all exceeded 1M viewers. The OSU game was 5M+, topping the weeks ratings.
I am not sure markets are as important going forward with all the cord cutting and streaming breaking up the monolithic cable packages. It will get harder to get all those New Yorkers who care nothing about college football to pay up for the BTN. The SEC does not have the large markets in its footprint, but still get high revenue with its brands. The BTN carriage fees Rutgers brings in have been good and that should continue for at least another decade. The decision to invite Rutgers looked good when it was made but I am not sure that would be the case today. Not a home run like PSU or USC/UCLA who have both brands and markets.
LikeLike
Christian, I don’t know what you’re talking about, man.
Now we’ll have even more of the tradition of B10 teams playing in the Rose Bowl and USC playing OSU/UMich.
LikeLike
Christian,
“One move reestablished old rivalries (Texas vs. A&M, Texas vs. Arkansas, and to a much lesser extent OU vs. Mizzou and A&M); the other move destroyed the granddaddy of them all.”
* What about all the B12 rivalries that got killed?
* If the SEC hadn’t taken TAMU and MO in the first place, all those old rivalries would’ve still been in the B12.
* How do we know the Rose Bowl is dead?
* The BCS and CFP already ruined much of its prestige, but it survived.
* USC has played OSU more than UU or CU, and also played MI, PSU, IL, and IA double digit times. UCLA has played NE, IL, MI, and WI double digit times. There are connections there already.
“Texas/OU to the SEC strengthened CFB tradition/history,”
It did? That’s probably news to the SWC, Big 8 and Big 12. I’m sure OkSU, Baylor, TT, and TCU are happy to hear how their history and traditions have been strengthened. UT and OU have almost no history of playing the other SEC teams except AR, TAMU and MO. None of the rest have played them even 10 times.
And that move forced the B10 to react, so it’s also the cause of USC and UCLA moving.
“USC/UCLA to the B1G knifed it in the back and spit on the corpse.”
You mean all that history the rest of the country mocks all the time, and tried to scuttle in the expanded CFP plan? That rings a little hollow.
LikeLike
Brian:
“* What about all the B12 rivalries that got killed?”
Texas has only three true historical rivals: OU, A&M, and Arky. We may have played Baylor and Tech more than some of those schools, but they’re not rivals, they’re the regional teams we beat 80% of the time (that’s an exaggeration, so please don’t fact check me, you get my point). Reestablishing bigtime historical rivalries is ALWAYS great for CFB; it sucks for Baylor and Tech and TCU, and I do feel for their alumni/fans, but it’s great for CFB overall.
“* How do we know the Rose Bowl is dead?”
As a kid growing up in Iowa, the Rose Bowl signified this magical game between us snowbound Midwesterners and those pass-happy, sunshiney West Coasters. It was OSU/Michigan/Iowa vs. USC/UCLA/Washington, it was the only time I rooted for any Big 10 team other than the Hawkeyes because it drove me nuts that those inferior Pac 10 teams seemed to win every Rose Bowl in the 70’s and 80’s. Even though the BCS/CFP changed the match-ups a bit, this USC/UCLA move has completely ruined that aspect of the game. There’ll always be a Rose Bowl, but it’ll never be what it once was.
“And that move forced the B10 to react, so it’s also the cause of USC and UCLA moving.”
Do we know that for a fact? That sure gets assumed a lot on here, and it makes perfect logical sense, but I think it’s likely Warren would have eventually pursued his national strategy with USC/UCLA, Notre Dame, and almost certainly Texas, even if the SEC had stayed at 14.
LikeLike
Christian,
Texas has only three true historical rivals: OU, A&M, and Arky. We may have played Baylor and Tech more than some of those schools, but they’re not rivals, they’re the regional teams we beat 80% of the time (that’s an exaggeration, so please don’t fact check me, you get my point). Reestablishing bigtime historical rivalries is ALWAYS great for CFB; it sucks for Baylor and Tech and TCU, and I do feel for their alumni/fans, but it’s great for CFB overall.
It’s good for UT, but I’m not sure reviving 2 rivalries for them trumps killing Bedlam and all the old SWC rivalries. More importantly, I don’t think kneecapping a conference along the way makes it good for CFB overall.
Even though the BCS/CFP changed the match-ups a bit, this USC/UCLA move has completely ruined that aspect of the game. There’ll always be a Rose Bowl, but it’ll never be what it once was.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing about the Rose Bowl, just waiting until the CFP gets expanded and we seen what becomes of it. As we both noted, it had already lost much of its prestige with the BCS and then CFP. UCLA hasn’t played in it since 1999 though. USC played in 2017, then not since 2009 (the last of 5 out of 6). So it might not be all doom and gloom. UO and UW and UU may carry on just fine.
Do we know that for a fact? That sure gets assumed a lot on here, and it makes perfect logical sense, but I think it’s likely Warren would have eventually pursued his national strategy with USC/UCLA, Notre Dame, and almost certainly Texas, even if the SEC had stayed at 14.
You can infer the SEC moved caused the B10 move from USC finally reaching out once they and the B10 realized the big jump the SEC was about to take financially and in power. Without that move, would the B10 have done this? Warren would’ve, but I’m not sure the presidents would have. But once they saw they’ll be way behind the SEC financially and even farther behind on power schools, there was a sense of urgency.
As you note, the B10 might have waited unless UT (or ND) wanted to join. The B10 would’ve preferred adding UT over USC. That just reinforces the fact that UT moving to the SEC drove this move as well.
LikeLike
Focusing only on revenue added and potential dilution is a mistake. The bottom line issue is how the schools function as a unit. USC and UCLA are too exposed. They need west coast partners, and their fan base needs continuity. It is essential that more PAC schools come into the B1G. The ideal is Cal + Stanford + U Washington + U Oregon.
Failure to fix the fan problem substantially weakens the new B1G
LikeLiked by 1 person
The CFP expansion money + an ESPN “B1G After Dark” window would probably justify 2 more teams (CFP expansion money might be used to smooth the way).
Reality is the Big Ten presidents understand that USC and UCLA can’t sit alone 2 time zones and 1500 miles away from the closest schools.
This like an extreme version of Penn State in the East, they needed partners on the East Coast, especially with the ACC trying to woo them.
USC and UCLA will get most likely 2 or 3 partners at some point.
Just a matter of timing. Might be around 2026, might be around 2030, might be around 2036.
I don’t think anybody thinks the Big Ten takes 0 more West Coast teams ever.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Reality is the Big Ten presidents understand that USC and UCLA can’t sit alone 2 time zones and 1500 miles away from the closest schools.”
Why can’t they? They can (now) afford to fly, and the UCLA report made clear how low the travel burden actually is. Many of the impacted teams could even consider playing in a western conference instead.
Delany’s concern with PSU is that they would eventually want to join an eastern conference if they were left on an island. What western conference would USC and UCLA be leaving the B10 for? They already know the P12 with them in it can’t pay them nearly as well as the B10. Neither could the B12. Is the SEC going to add a pacific branch (esp. PNW)? I doubt it.
San Francisco is 380 miles from LA. Tempe is 381 miles from LA. Tucson is 483 miles from LA. Those are the 4 closest schools to LA in the P12. For comparison, PSU is 322 miles from OSU. The LA schools are on an island already within the P12 by Delany’s standards.
“USC and UCLA will get most likely 2 or 3 partners at some point.”
Even if they don’t want them? Have you heard anyone from either school ask for western partners in the B10? JoePa and PSU wanted them.
Adding 2 western schools means about 1 less eastern road trip per team for the LA schools. But those western road trips are still long. Plus you’ve doubled the number of western trips all of the eastern teams have to take. And for this “benefit” you are going to take less money and start playing more B10 games at 10pm ET so most of the fan base can’t watch them (including the road team’s fans). What’s the upside?
LikeLike
Upside is long-term demographics and continued growth.
But I do think you make fair points that any addition has to be value additive permanently relative to the additional travel burden for existing members.
There is no reason to rush into this.
In the future things can change including which schools add value.
I think the only “sure” thing out west is Washington right now.
They check all the boxes.
If there was a 2nd Washington-like school, I think those 2 would already be coming.
I think best thing to do given that is just wait.
There’s no point to making a move West right now.
Plenty of time for that once the ACC is sorted out.
LikeLike
I don’t think its certain the Big 10 adds more now. And I don’t think UW is certain. I do think based on reports and TV ratings, there are only 4 western candidates, UW, Oregon, Cal and Stanford.
If they add one it could be any of those schools but Oregon. If they add two, it could be UW/Oregon, UW/Cal, UW/Stanford or Cal/Stanford. California politics, a desire to reduce travel by having a pair in the Bay Area or a desire to dominate the Bay Area could all push Cal ahead of UW or ahead of Stanford. UW/Stanford would seem to be the most likely pair, but nothing is certain except that Oregon only gets in behind Washington.
It would be interesting to read a book on this a few years down the road. The only such book I know of is a few chapters of a longer book (“The Texas Way”) by former UT Chancellor and President William Cunningham. He wrote about the 1990-1995 realignment moves and attempts by Texas.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Upside is long-term demographics and continued growth.”
Why is continued growth assumed to be a positive? It has definite costs (less frequent games against old foes, more travel, less cohesive conference). Is there any known advantage to just being bigger (no financial bump)?
We just added SoCal, and already have the NYC-DC corridor plus Chicago. Must the B10 chase demographics forever? How many OOS students can we enroll? At some point we have to reevaluate the B10’s needs.
LikeLike
@Brian
I don’t think the Big Ten has to chase demographics forever, but it’d be reasonable to be present in every region.
That can be accomplished theoretical with just 2 more schools (i.e. Washington and Miami).
I agree that too many additions is dilutive.
But I don’t think the Big Ten felt secure in its footprint.
Much like MLB in the 1950s when it was just a Midwest/Northeast league, being present in the West and South is value additive for the schools in the conference.
Or like any business or operation.
You want an anchor where people are.
As far as logistics go, for the original 14, they won’t have to bear as much of the travel cost as the new additions do.
I would be fine with the Big Ten never expanding again with 2 more schools West and 2 more East.
This isn’t an ongoing forever process, we don’t need every school in every region.
Just grab 4 schools that are relevant out West and East that have easy travel access and call it a day.
I’d be perfectly fine with Washington/Stanford/UVa/Miami for example.
LikeLike
z33k,
“I don’t think the Big Ten has to chase demographics forever, but it’d be reasonable to be present in every region.”
Why? Other conferences are already present in those other regions. Why does the B10 and only the B10 need to be everywhere? The B10 isn’t a professional sports league with no competition.
“But I don’t think the Big Ten felt secure in its footprint.”
Which is why it already expanded to both coasts.
“Much like MLB in the 1950s when it was just a Midwest/Northeast league, being present in the West and South is value additive for the schools in the conference.”
Is it? The math doesn’t strongly support that. It might breakeven, or even lose money.
“You want an anchor where people are.”
NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly – I think we’ve got that covered.
“As far as logistics go, for the original 14, they won’t have to bear as much of the travel cost as the new additions do.”
They do in total. New additions on the perimeter make everyone else travel more to get to them. A new addition will have 5-8 teams taking 4-5 longer road trips. But now the 14 current members add 1 longer road trip for each of their 5-8 teams (adjusted for # of games). It’s more travel for everyone, so the benefit needs to be worth it.
“I would be fine with the Big Ten never expanding again with 2 more schools West and 2 more East.”
So “only” 4 more schools, for now. How did every conference survive with 12 or fewer schools for decades if the B10 needs 20 to feel safe?
“This isn’t an ongoing forever process, we don’t need every school in every region.”
It sure sounds like we do.
LikeLike
Brian, the B10 has a more pressing demographics issue because its core regions have more/faster falling numbers of HS grads than conferences located in other regions of the US.
I too would be fine with expansion of 2 on the West Coast and 2 on the East (though I think the 2 Bay Area schools and either the 2 FL ACC schools or Miami+UVa or Miami+ND) by the 2030’s. I don’t think that’s the end state, however. Eventually, the B10 will add UW and ASU as well. Possibly CU (both ASU and CU really need to raise their fan support, however).
Finally, Brian, I know you want the world to be forever stuck in 1962 (already 60 years ago by now, BTW), but the world will keep changing even if you don’t want it to.
The B10 isn’t the only national conference now, BTW. The B12 stretches from UT to FL and is actually in even more regions of the country than the B10 is (SW, SE, NE, Midwest, Plains, and MW).
LikeLike
Richard said
“The B10 isn’t the only national conference now, BTW. The B12 stretches from UT to FL and is actually in even more regions of the country than the B10 is (SW, SE, NE, Midwest, Plains, and MW).”
Richard do you really think that there is a single TV/internet business person in the world who thinks of the B12 as a national conference? They have the number four team in Florida and nothing else on either coast.
Utah is not exactly considered to be the west coast. Utah is not even in the Pacific time zone, And other than UCF, the Big12 has no teams in states that border on the Atlantic. If you want to sell that as a national conference, good luck.
The SEC is as much a national conference as the Big12. Texas is not quite as far west as Utah, but the SEC has teams in Florida, GA, and SC, so there are three east coast teams.
LikeLike
Bernie, sure, you could argue that the SEC is a national conference not as well, or at least not a regional one any more, but you would just be reinforcing my point that college football has nationalized and pining for 1962 won’t turn back the clock.
LikeLike
Richard – I would argue that the SEC is a regional conference with national appeal.
LikeLike
McMurphy’s report indicated that the Big 10 was thinking that way, that USC and UCLA needed west coast partners.
I certainly had a question about that. That report indicated Big 10 officials do as well.
LikeLike
“Sources” often say what they want to see in the press. Maybe they’re a vocal minority trying to convince the rest. I see lots of reports of things getting considered. How seriously, and by whom?
I’m not saying they definitely aren’t looking at it, but I think most reports are more speculation or 1 person’s opinion/wish.
Has anyone that matters said on the record that the LA schools want/need western partners?
LikeLike
As I said elsewhere, all 4 of them together is far too dilutive. To not be dilutive, each school has to bring in about $75mm/year now. That’s $300mm for all 4 schools. ESPN just offered less than that for the entire 10-school Pac.
And no school wants to make less money than they did before.
But I think it’s possible to make the math work for adding 2 of those schools. Stanford and Cal are stellar in all the aspects that don’t have to do with TV money (academic rep, B10 alums, recruiting grounds for both OOS students and football, and within busing distance of LA) and Stanford’s even pretty good at football. They also are worth the most of those 4 due to their market ($45mm, maybe $50mm each).
I see $150mm for 15 After Dark 4th choice games (which will include some games played in the central time zone before Nov) being possible. May need a streamer to pay up for that, though.
I can see the 6 Central Time Zonesschools being asked to host 1 After Dark game a year (starting 9PM local time) in exchange for no Friday night games. and IU, PU, UMD, RU, Stanford, Cal, and UCLA asked to host 1 Friday night game a year. Nothing asked from OSUn UMich, PSU, MSU, and USC because they bring the most value to the TV package.bAo,ls
LikeLike
bob,
“The bottom line issue is how the schools function as a unit. USC and UCLA are too exposed. They need west coast partners, and their fan base needs continuity.”
Why? What do they need west coast partners for? After all, they agreed to not have them, so apparently they are unaware of their own needs. How will they cease to function as universities or sports programs without western partners? They still have OOC games to play out west. They have their biggest rival across town. They will still host 50-70% of their contests at home. NE, RU, and UMD left all their old partners behind. The travel isn’t trivial for them, either.
What does their fan base need continuity for? They don’t care about most of their current opponents, that’s a big part of the problem in the P12. Did NE fans need that? They haven’t stopped having sellouts despite never having a single B12 partner. Did RU and UMD fan bases need that?
“It is essential that more PAC schools come into the B1G.”
Essential for what? UCLA just showed that only 8 of their 25 teams (about 25% of their athletes) would experience significant travel impacts (max was 24 hours over an entire season), and they already have plans to help with the worst of those. That’s before any smart scheduling. So it isn’t travel.
You talk about the fans, but don’t say what the problem is for them.
“The ideal is Cal + Stanford + U Washington + U Oregon.”
Ideal for what purpose? You haven’t stated the problem that needs solving, or shown why this is the correct approach to fix it.
“Failure to fix the fan problem substantially weakens the new B1G”
https://www.pacifictakes.com/2020/5/27/21272206/pac-12-football-ranking-teams-attendance-5-year-oregon-washington-usc-ucla-colorado-arizona-stanford
What fan problem?
UCLA set an all-time average home attendance record in 2014 at 76,650. The Rose Bowl seats over 91,000 (about 84% full).
P12 attendance averages for 2015-2019:
1. Washington Huskies — 66527.20 people, on average
2. USC Trojans — 66261.40 people, on average
3. UCLA Trojans — 57074.80 people, on average
But USC and UCLA play in huge stadiums.
So, with that in mind, we take a look at the percentage in which those figures fill their stadiums.
1. Oregon — 102.79%
2. Utah — 101.18%
3. Washington — 94.85%
4. Washington State — 92.67%
5. Colorado — 91.04%
6. Stanford — 86.53%
7. USC — 85.50%
8. Arizona — 84.73%
9. Oregon State — 81.61%
10. Arizona State — 77.67%
11. UCLA — 70.80%
12. Cal — 69.57%
Their fans aren’t interested in their current P12 opponents. The bigger brands the B10 brings will probably have more impact. If nothing else, the B10 will bring novelty and some local alumni/fans.
LikeLike
If we want to increase team travel logistics for everyone, then Stanford, Cal, Utah and Colorado make a lot more sense than Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington.
LikeLike
More data on Colorado-Utah vs Washington-Oregon . . .
WSJ Academic rankings: Wash 45, Utah 133, Colorado 182, Oregon 241.
TV sets in DMA:
Seattle 1.8 M + Eugene 0.2 M = 2.0 M
Denver 1.6 M + Salt Lake 0.9 M = 2.5 M
Current CBS football rankings:
4. Utah
14. Oregon
45. Washington
98. Colorado
LikeLike
Colin,
If the B10 needs 2 more western teams, and if those 2 accomplish the B10’s goals, then sure. I can’t dispute they are closer to the current 14 members, and a similar distance to LA as the PNW schools.
But my question remains: What problem(s) is the B10 trying to solve through expansion, and do any schools achieve that solution?
NE allowed the B10 to add a CCG, a major revenue stream they’d been leaving on the table. NE brought a big CFB brand and thus viewers (supposedly).
RU and UMD brought eastern partners for PSU, added major markets, added a lot of BTN subscriptions, and brought the midwestern B10 into a second region. The midwest is aging and slow in growth, so getting into a region with faster growth was viewed as key for the future.
Remaining concerns as of then:
* Money (never enough)
* “Demographics” for future students, and recruiting athletes
So the B10 added USC and UCLA. SoCal adds the #2 market, and about 24M people (40M in all of CA). Both schools bring some brands as well. This checked both boxes. Before the LA expansion, many thought the B10 wanted UVA + UNC for demographics and maybe money. SoCal is larger than VA + NC, contains a much larger market, and the schools have much better CFB brands than UVA + UNC.
So my question remains: What problem(s) is the B10 trying to solve through expansion, and do any schools achieve that solution?
LikeLike
Colin, for travel, once you get on a plane, another hour or 2 on the plane isn’t a big difference. The big difference is between busable or not. And really only the Bay Area schools are reachable by bus from LA, are stellar in all the non-financial aspects, and are close enough in TV value (due to their market) to be worth considering. Next would be UW. ASU and CU even farther out in the future due to demographic growth, but both ASU and CU have to really grow their fan base to be worth considering. I think those 2 schools have even fewer fans than your PU does.
LikeLike
Richard: “The big difference is between busable or not. And really only the Bay Area schools are reachable by bus from LA, are stellar in all the non-financial aspects, and are close enough in TV value (due to their market) to be worth considering.”
Not much of that comment is inarguably true. LA to SF by car is 6 hours – and would be an even longer bus ride. Neither Stanford nor Cal have good football fan bases and many of us believe that those TV markets are already captured with USC and UCLA.
I am not a fan of further expansion in the West but the Big Ten Commish Office has announced (1) that the B1G is looking at further expansion there and (2) they needed to ease the travel logistics for USC and UCLA. Using those two considerations plus the obvious TV markets + academics + brand + fan base, let’s grade the candidates.
School Proximity LA/Proximity B1G/TV Market (% captured + size)/FB Brand/Fan Base/Academics
Stanford B/F/D/C/D/A – GPA 1.83
Cal B/F/D/D/D/A – GPA 1.67
Oregon C/F/D/A/C/C – GPA 1.83
Washington D/F/B/B/B/B – GPA 2.17
Utah C/D/B/B/B/B – GPA 2.5
Colorado D/B/B/C/C/B – GPA 2.33
LikeLike
Weighing them all the same is your problem, and the SoCal schools definitely don’t capture NoCal (any more than adding MI schools would capture OH). Imagine if MI and OH were one state instead of 2. Would you argue in that case that adding OSU would get you the area of MI or adding UMich and MSU would get you the area of OH?
LikeLike
Richard: “the SoCal schools definitely don’t capture NoCal (any more than adding MI schools would capture OH).”
That is your bogus analogy, not mine, and I don’t agree with it at all. UCLA and Cal draw students from all over the state. Stanford and USC draw students across the nation. The fact is that Stanford has a very small fan base and Cal has a very disinterested fan base. Adding those two schools isn’t going to move the needle on Big Ten TV viewership.
LikeLike
Colin, have you ever lived in CA? You’re sounding like a guy who’s never lived in CA. I have.
And yes, Cal has a disinterested fanbase. Just like RU and UMD have disinterested fanbases. So was adding those 2 schools a mistake? I’d argue no because adding local schools in NJ and MD (and thus local media in those areas covering B10 sports) got casual fans in those areas interested in big time B10 games in a way that they weren’t before. In 2021, the B10 had 14 conference games with 4mm or more viewers. In 2014, the B10 had only 6 conference games with 4mm or more viewers (that weren’t shown in split coverage by ABC; 4 more where it was split coverage so helped by another conference).
Same argument applies to Cal.
Also, despite having a small fanbase, Stanford gets viewers because they win games and get ranked. Given their money advantage, I don’t see that going away.
We can see here that Stanford doesn’t actually perform that badly in TV viewership:
View at Medium.com
25th, above UO, UW, and UCLA. Way above CU.
They also have the ND game.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, have you ever lived in CA? You’re sounding like a guy who’s never lived in CA.”
As an Army captain I was stationed at Letterman Army Medical Center in SF from 1973-75. When Army played at Cal in 1974, I received free tickets and attended the game in Berkeley.
All other college FB games I had attended were at Purdue, Illinois, Indiana or ND. I couldn’t believe what I saw at Cal. The stadium was 80% empty and no one cheered. There was sparse clapping when Cal did something positive but that game was the polar opposite of a Big Ten game.
LikeLike
With Stanford, you need to look at more than just short term. From 2000-2009 Stanford was 92nd in win %. (Cal was #40). Stanford did very well in the past decade (9th-Cal was 90th), but you can’t assume that as a constant.
LikeLike
bullet,
“With Stanford, you need to look at more than just short term. From 2000-2009 Stanford was 92nd in win %. (Cal was #40). Stanford did very well in the past decade (9th-Cal was 90th), but you can’t assume that as a constant.”
I agree, but why cherry-pick 2000-09 either?
1998-2021: #44 0.561
1978-2021: #54 0.524
1946-2021: #54 0.527
All-time: #32 0.577
Overall, they rank #24 in Winsipedia’s rating system (below MSU, but above IA).
LikeLike
I am not a fan of further expansion in the West but the Big Ten Commish Office has announced (1) that the B1G is looking at further expansion there and (2) they needed to ease the travel logistics for USC and UCLA.
The Commissioner’s office announced no such thing. Warren said that he envisions the Big Ten at 20 schools eventually. He didn’t state a time frame or what regions the additional schools would come from.
I believe Big Ten sources, although not the Commissioner’s office itself, said that the league will work with USC and UCLA to mitigate travel impacts. It did not say that the means of doing so will be adding more Western teams.
LikeLike
Marc: ” Warren said that he envisions the Big Ten at 20 schools eventually. He didn’t state a time frame or what regions the additional schools would come from.”
I didn’t say that he gave a time frame. That little hobgoblin is in your head, not mine. The Big Ten office clearly leaked what region the additional teams would come from:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/further-big-ten-expansion-could-open-door-for-additional-revenue-broadcast-partners/
LikeLike
The Big Ten office clearly leaked what region the additional teams would come from…
The comment is unsourced. As Brian pointed out, there are many people who leak things for selfish or strategic reasons. Most realignment rumors do not happen. The idea is not ridiculous, but you are wrong to say the Big Ten Commissioner’s office leaked it. We simply don’t know who did, how well informed they are, or what their motivations were.
LikeLike
Marc, there are dozens of news reports like the ones below. Google it for yourself. Do you think these sports writers just started circulating rumors?
https://journalbreak.com/big-ten-evaluating-cal-oregon-stanford-and-washington-from-pac-12-as-further-expansion-considered/
https://getaboutcolumbia.com/the-big-ten-has-evaluated-cal-oregon-stanford-and-washington-from-the-pac-12-considering-further-expansion/
LikeLike
Marc, there are dozens of news reports like the ones below. Google it for yourself. Do you think these sports writers just started circulating rumors?
I have of course read those stories. We can only conclude that the writers got their rumors from someone; we just don’t know who. About 90% of realignment rumors do not happen, even when published by supposedly reputable reporters. It is wrong to suppose that any Big Ten rumor must necessarily have originated with the Big Ten office — there are so many other people who might have a vested interest in putting the chatter out there. The actual comments from Kevin Warren are a lot more vague.
Part of the problem is that sportswriters a very low bar for accepting anonymous tips. Imagine if the New York Times published that Guatemala is very close to joining NATO. If NATO were a conference, you would be reading stories like that every day.
LikeLike
Marc: ” About 90% of realignment rumors do not happen, even when published by supposedly reputable reporters. It is wrong to suppose that any Big Ten rumor must necessarily have originated with the Big Ten office — there are so many other people who might have a vested interest in putting the chatter out there. The actual comments from Kevin Warren are a lot more vague.”
(1) We’re all big boys here and we are well aware that most realignment rumors don’t happen.
(2) It is not wrong to suppose that the rumor originated with the Big Ten office. There were multiple sources with the same story and when Kevin Warren was questioned about it, he clearly did not deny it.
(3) In response to the news articles, several posters on this forum have been speculating about further western expansion of the Big Ten. In addition to me this includes z33k, Redwood, Endeavor, Richard and others including yourself. I have previously stated that I think we’re going to stay at 16 for a long time but then USC & UCLA were a lightning strike, so it’s certainly possible. I have not been making guarantees that further expansion will happen nor which schools will be chosen if it does.
LikeLike
If I were the Big Ten at the present time, I would absolutely let it “leak” (or strongly) hint to the media that the conference is still looking at further expansion and at more Pac-12 schools in particular. As long as it was not an official quote and without sources. Why? Because I’d want to Pac-12 to continue to be in disarray while negotiating a new TV deal and given those schools pause from extending their GOR beyond the current date. I would want to do that *even if I have zero intention of considering any school from the Pac-12 in the near future*. Not only does that leave candidates available if ever needed for the Big Ten, but it also potentially makes their TV deal worse, which relatively boosts our new west coast members compared to their local competition.
That’s why I don’t really buy much into any of these rumors. The Big Ten has plenty of reasons to put stuff out there without it indicating their true intentions.
LikeLike
Two more west coast teams. Stanford and ?. (Cal or Washington?) Save spots for ND and one ACC team or two ACC. If three desirable ACC teams somehow wind up available, take all three and worry about details later.
Would be a nice problem for the B1G to have. Too many good schools available.
LikeLike
There probably aren’t _that_ many left, though. As I said, definitely ND and FSU and probably Miami. 2 of the West Coast schools if you can sell an After Dark package for good money. I still vote for Stanford and Cal.
LikeLike
Forget Notre Dame as part of #17-20; it’s not worth the wait and Big Ten presidents will likely select Washington, Cal, Stanford and Oregon. I fully expect the second part of a two-pronged B1G expansion will take place in the 2030s, this one to the east (ACC-oriented). ND can be #21 if it then so desires, joining three ACC emigres (the presidents would probably choose UVa, UNC and either Georgia Tech or Duke, unless Miami or FSU gains AAU status by 2036).
LikeLike
Man, you keep not listening to what I say and repeat the same thing. There’s no way to make the financial math to add all 4 of those schools work, and I very much doubt the B10 schools will take a cut in payouts to add them.
Again, 2 of them _might_ be paid for by an After Dark package. Even that is borderline.
And out East, besides ND, only FSU and maybe Miami aren’t dilutive or may be additive.
LikeLike
It’s pretty simple. if USC feels it needs western partners and/or the B1G wants more inventory for that ‘after dark’ window, they will take Oregon/Washington soon. They being the most valuable to prospective bidders. They idea the B1G is going to bypass Oregon for Washington, Oregon being easily the most attractive brand remaining, is silly. Do you really think a passionate benefactor like Knight isn’t going to insure Oregon remains a brand du’jour long after he’s gone? “But the Presidents!” Sorry, but Oregon and Washington will come as a combo or not come at all. My feeling is they come soon, before ESPN locks them down. I also believe Stanford is the only guaranteed addition., coupled with Norte Dame or Cal. Nearly every major tech company in the world has Stanford ties. That’s equates to power now and in the future. BTW, it was Gumble that inquired about “twenty teams”. Warren’s response was that the B1G will perpetually grow. I would not be surprised if the original report was right. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, FSU, Miami, ND and UNC are all in their sites, though the SEC will likely get first dibs with FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA (or Miami).
LikeLike
…Grammatical errors notwithstanding. Hoo-boy!
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34430807/sec-leaning-nine-game-conference-schedule-which-not-only-adds-value-tv-protects-season-ticket-sales
Slowly the SEC is coming around to 9 conference games.
There is mounting momentum among SEC schools to go from eight conference games to nine in football once Oklahoma and Texas join the league, sources told ESPN.
The league’s athletics directors held their regularly scheduled meeting earlier this week. Administrators and coaches from multiple schools in the league said the feeling now is that the SEC will ultimately land at nine conference games with a 3-6 format when the new scheduling model is announced.
“Going to nine games not only adds value for TV, but protects season ticket sales, donations and College Football Playoff access for more teams,” one SEC athletic director told ESPN.
Another league source said there were a few schools on the fence between eight and nine games back in May during the SEC spring meetings, but added, “I think there’s ample support now to get to nine. More rivalries can be played on an annual basis, and the content that an extra league game would provide for TV would mean a lot more money.”
…
“If the vote were taken today, it would be nine games,” an SEC athletic director told ESPN. “I thought we were there in May, too, but there was some flip-flopping. I think most of those schools have crossed over and will probably vote with the room.”
Some coaches have voiced support for nine games. Alabama’s Nick Saban has long been a proponent and said that schools “owed it to the fans to play more good games. If we don’t, they’re going to quit coming.”
Missouri’s Eliah Drinkwitz said this summer “to me, it has to be a 3-6 model.”
Texas A&M coach Jimbo Fisher told ESPN this week he thinks nine games is “probably the best scenario. That way, you can keep alive the rivalries and the secondary rivalries, because in this league, the secondary rivalries are almost as important as the primary rivalries.”
Texas coach Steve Sarkisian has said it was important that the Longhorns be able to play Oklahoma and Texas A&M every year once the Longhorns begin play in the SEC. The only way to do that would be to play nine games with a 3-6 model.
Several ADs said they are hopeful the schedule will be finalized sometime this fall before the 2022 season is complete.
I think they used the ticket sales argument for the lesser programs, and the CFP access argument for the better ones.
LikeLike
Brain –
… and re-opening the TV contract for everyone.
LikeLike
Some people might be wondering how CBS could fit in 7 B10 games next season when they’ll have SEC games in the afternoon after week 2 and everybody has OTA exclusivity.
I think I know how:
CBS and ESPN swap 1 afternoon for evening slot 1 time a year. That’s 1 Big10 afternoon game. Another B10 afternoon game on Black Friday. 2 B10 afternoon games in weeks 1 & 2. That’s 4. Another 2 B10 afternoon games on Labor Day Sunday and Labor Day Monday. Finally, an evening game Th or F on week 1.
On Week 1, CBS could be showing B10 games Fri, Sat, Sun, and Mon. 4 days straight.
LikeLike
The problems that the BiG are trying to solve through expansion are:
1) Access to large TV markets in which numerous conference alums reside for the purpose of monetization through higher TV rights fees for sports broadcasts & BTN. Note that nationalization of the conference attracts greater interest and revenue from OTA networks, because it strengthens their ability to preserve current business models (i.e. – Pay TV bundles)
2) Increased exposure in markets that are potentially fertile recruiting grounds
Regarding residence of alums – per Frank’s previous post of WSJ data on May 18, 2018:
Washington, D.C. (#9 TV market) has a strong enough base of conference alums (3rd behind Chicago and NYC) to warrant consideration of another school besides Maryland. UVA has the prestige & relative proximity to D.C, Virginia Tech the football heritage due solely to Frank Beamer.
The SF Bay Area (# 6 TV market) is now home to the largest number of conference alums of any place not currently represented by a school in the BiG, and has great breadth of representation across the entire conference. In fact, SF ranks very slightly higher than LA. Stanford and Cal merit consideration as the representatives in SF, despite weak CFB enthusiasm (especially for Cal). The logic for adding them is very similar to the logic for adding Maryland and Rutgers – except the academic prestige is far better, and Stanford has a rich sports heritage and a national (actually international) alumni base.
Boston (#10 TV market) and Denver (#16) were tied at a somewhat distant #2. These are weak markets for CFB enthusiasm – the former due to high fragmentaton.
Dallas (#5 TV market) & Atlanta (#7) were close behind tied at #4, but are unattainable.
Seattle (#12 TV market) was close behind at #6. It has the advantage of being one of the fastest-growing areas in the U.S., and home to the state’s flagship university that is continually rising in academic prestige – which also has a decent football pedigree and very solid fan enthusiasm.
Phoenix (#11 TV market) was at #7, Miami (#18 TV market, note that Tampa-St. Petersburg is #13) & Houston (#8) were tied at #8
Note that Portland, Oregon (#21 TV market) didn’t register at all in this data. Nor, surprisingly, did any North Carolina city (Charlotte = #22 TV market).
As for fertile recruiting grounds (per Bleacher Report):
Florida is #1
CA is #3, with SoCal stronger than NorCal
Georgia is #4
Ohio is #6
NJ = #8
Virginia is #9 (and supposedly rising)
Maryland + D.C. is #12
Pennsylvania is #13
Washington State is #14
North Carolina is #15
Arizona is #16
Michigan is #19
Illinois is #20
Indiana is #23
NY is #24
Recruiting confirms the appeal of FSU and/or Miami, Stanford and/or Cal, a Virginia school, and Washington.
The bottom-line is that Stanford and/or Cal would help accomplish the money, alumni relations, and recruiting objectives. Washington, to a lesser (but increasing) extent, would also. Oregon brings a football brand, but nothing else.
When the time comes to look at the ACC, UVA and/or Virginia Tech stand out – as do the Florida schools. In future decades, Arizona State and Colorado may become attractive.
Given the criteria I laid out at the top, I think the BiG will ultimately have at least 22 teams. I think at least 2 could be added within 5 years, and a cumulative total of 2-4 will be announced as additions by 2030.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Redwood: “The SF Bay Area (# 6 TV market) is now home to the largest number of conference alums of any place not currently represented by a school in the BiG, and has great breadth of representation across the entire conference. In fact, SF ranks very slightly higher than LA.”
You guys flat-out D*O N*O*T G*E*T I*T. The Big Ten has already captured that market with USC and UCLA. No one in the Bay area cares about Cal/Stanford football. There are more USC/UCLA fans that than Stanford/Cal fans.
LikeLike
I am a native of the Bay Area. You don’t know what you are talking about. As I have written previously, SoCal and NorCal are almost two different states. The only people living in the Bay Area that might care a whit about USC and UCLA are those schools’ alums. Period. So, the idea that USC and UCLA bring the BiG the NorCal market is just ignorant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Redwood: “The only people living in the Bay Area that might care a whit about USC and UCLA are those schools’ alums.”
That’s probably true but it certainly doesn’t mean that anyone cares about Stanford or Cal. There is zero fan interest in those two schools, Bay Area or otherwise. It’s a Dead Zone for college football, like New England, New York or the Dakotas.
LikeLike
???? The Dakotas definitely support the Dakota FCS teams well considering their population.
LikeLike
I have to concur on this one. Though I spent three years in Palo Alto, I was born and raised in Santa Monica, and anything north of San Luis Obispo is as disparate to an Angelino (or Angeleño if you prefer) as any two contiguous states. Neither Stanford or Berkeley ingratiate themselves (or vice versa) to the type of ‘t-shirt’ fanbases that fill stadiums. That changes once they become a part of the big ten. Those stadiums WILL be filled with B1G alumni. Do they bring the NorCal market? Combined, I believe they do, though certainly not to the extent that USC/UCLA bring LA. More importantly, adding a University as determinative of the future on a global scale as Stanford, is incalculable to the academic prestige of the Big Ten. I believe that’s enough to insure them a spot. A six school West Wing would suite me just fine.
LikeLike
Bruce Feldman, who just spent ten days talking with Big Ten coaches, administrators etc. for a new book, told Rich Eisen “A couple weeks ago, I would have put the odds of the B1G adding four more Pac teams at 10%. I would now put those odds much higher.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Endeavor: “Neither Stanford or Berkeley ingratiate themselves (or vice versa) to the type of ‘t-shirt’ fanbases that fill stadiums. That changes once they become a part of the big ten. Those stadiums WILL be filled with B1G alumni.”
Look, this is absurd. If Stanford and Cal join the Big Ten, all of the alumni of Penn State and Michigan and Illinois who live in the Bay Area are not going to fill Cal’s stadium to watch Cal play Iowa. They’ll be watching Penn State and Michigan and Illinois play on the major networks and the BTN, just as they do right now.
Endeavor: “More importantly, adding a University as determinative of the future on a global scale as Stanford, is incalculable to the academic prestige of the Big Ten.”
I agree that “incalculable” is a good word here. It is meaningless.
LikeLike
More importantly, adding a University as determinative of the future on a global scale as Stanford, is incalculable to the academic prestige of the Big Ten.
To my knowledge, no conference yet (in the modern era) has expanded for primarily academic reasons. There is a first time for everything, but so far it has not happened.
It’s more accurate to say there is an academic floor below which the Big Ten won’t go, e.g., Louisville isn’t getting in even if they make the playoffs the next 5 years. But once a school is above that floor, it’s primarily about media rights — or at least, has been up to now.
I am not saying Stanford’s academics are irrelevant, but academics are not the “more important” reason why they will get in, if they ever do. Academics could be a tie-breaker if everything else was pretty close to equal.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“The problems that the BiG are trying to solve through expansion are:
1) Access to large TV markets in which numerous conference alums reside for the purpose of monetization through higher TV rights fees for sports broadcasts & BTN.”
Is that still a problem? They added NYC, DC, Philly, and LA. How many markets is enough, before you get diminishing returns overall? The media experts say the SF schools don’t add nearly as much value, nor do the PNW schools. At some point you say we have the top 4 markets, 5 of the top 10, and 8 of the top 20 (with 2 more in CA I didn’t include), and that’s sufficient. We still have lots of interested fans/alumni in many of the other markets. We don’t \have to have a physical presence in all of them.
“2) Increased exposure in markets that are potentially fertile recruiting grounds”
Again, diminishing returns with the schools available. The best grounds are dominated by the SEC and the B10 can’t change that. Adding GT, for example, is unlikely to make much difference. OSU recruits nationally already, and so so most B10 schools. And now they also have SoCal to recruit more heavily.
“Regarding residence of alums – per Frank’s previous post of WSJ data on May 18, 2018:
Washington, D.C. (#9 TV market) has a strong enough base of conference alums (3rd behind Chicago and NYC) to warrant consideration of another school besides Maryland. UVA has the prestige & relative proximity to D.C, Virginia Tech the football heritage due solely to Frank Beamer.”
Maybe. UVA is 117 miles from DC, has a small fan base, and no CFB brand. VT is 269 miles from DC, but has the bigger brand. How much do either of those help when UMD is already in? So many DC residents come from elsewhere that no one school dominates the market. Is adding 2 more schools to solidify a market already in the footprint really adding value?
“The SF Bay Area (# 6 TV market) is now home to the largest number of conference alums of any place not currently represented by a school in the BiG, and has great breadth of representation across the entire conference. In fact, SF ranks very slightly higher than LA.”
You really can’t tell that from his table. Unfortunately it gives ranges of percentages of graduates, not actual numbers. All we really know is that SF had at least 1% of the recent graduates from all 14 schools (and we’ll assume UCLA and USC as well). Lots of older alumni live in the Phoenix area, for example, but that isn’t represented in the data at all. So don’t assume that data maps the total fan bases.
Even if the most alumni do live there, that’s a never-ending battle. There’s always another market with the next most alumni. There needs to be some metric of when the numbers lead to sufficient value.
What other data do show is the SF residents are not big supporters of the SF schools. They don’t sell many tickets and Cal’s TV ratings stink. Stanford’s are bolstered by the ND game, and having many of their weaker games on P12N so the ratings don’t count against their average.
“Stanford and Cal merit consideration as the representatives in SF, despite weak CFB enthusiasm (especially for Cal).”
They are the only realistic options there, sure. And all schools deserve consideration. They just don’t all deserve to be added.
“The logic for adding them is very similar to the logic for adding Maryland and Rutgers – except the academic prestige is far better, and Stanford has a rich sports heritage and a national (actually international) alumni base.”
NYC was a much bigger market, and BTN subscriptions were more important back then. Academic prestige isn’t getting them added unless they check the other boxes too. The only sports heritage that really matters is CFB brand (Stanford’s is decent), and maybe king status in MBB a little. The analysis might reach a different conclusion here, especially factoring in the travel costs.
Then you go on to make my point by continuing to list more markets. There’s always another one. That’s not a reason to add them.
“Recruiting confirms the appeal of FSU and/or Miami, Stanford and/or Cal, a Virginia school, and Washington.”
What is the evidence that adding mediocre programs in SF help recruiting enough above adding the LA schools to justify adding them? Teams will already be in CA which is a huge step up, and the B10 already recruits in CA.
“The bottom-line is that Stanford and/or Cal would help accomplish the money, alumni relations, and recruiting objectives.”
1. No, the expert said they would cost money.
2. You can play them OOC for that. You’re already going to be in LA regularly.
3. There’s no evidence adding them will help much. It might help the SF schools recruit better. The B10 and SEC have already been stealing top recruits from CA. Playing in LA should help the B10 in all of CA to some extent.
“Given the criteria I laid out at the top, I think the BiG will ultimately have at least 22 teams. I think at least 2 could be added within 5 years, and a cumulative total of 2-4 will be announced as additions by 2030.”
But you didn’t really give criteria. You said markets and recruiting, but with no metrics. The B10 could expand to 50 and still have more markets it could join. Should we add Rice to get Houston and recruit in TX? SMU for Dallas? GT for Atlanta? Tulane for NO?
LikeLike
Brian – “Tulane for NO?”
Hell yeah! It would be everybody’s favorite road trip. Recruiting hot bed for recruits the B1G won’t get. AAU. Top 50(ish) market. And beautiful new 30k seat on-campus Yullman stadium can be expanded.
Let’s do it!
LikeLike
If GTech gets left behind when the ACC collapses, they should join with Tulane, Rice, SMU, and Wake to form a conference. Fertile recruiting grounds and beautiful . . .surroundings all around. They’ll likely get BC too.
LikeLike
It all depends on whether FSU (and UVa) choose the SEC and also if ND finally comes.
Worst case, the B10 gets none of those, so either stands pat and/or adds Miami + UW and/or the NoCal schools.
If the B10 somehow lands both ND and FSU, it’ll also add Stanford and Miami (at the least). Possibly UW and UVa (if possible) too.
So Miami and Stanford likely come in most/all cases. But that explains the hesitancy in expanding further. With no ACC schools (and effectively ND too) available soon, it’s difficult to decide on which of Cal or UW to bring with Stanford (and they need an After Dark package to pay for it).
With 2 Ivy equivalents (Stanford and NU), all the top 4 publics in Cal, UMich, UVa, and UCLA, and near-Ivies ND and USC, the top of the B10 would be about on par with the Ivy League academically and in network strength.
LikeLike
The biggest problem with Oregon is sustainability.
I always like to ask myself: “If X school is bad at football for 20 years, what do you have there; can they bounce back?”
Just look at the past 5 additions to the conference: Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, USC, UCLA.
The latter 4 have giant enrollments/alumni bases, huge research expenditures/ academic prestige, and are located in huge markets for Big Ten alums on the coasts.
USC/UCLA are located in a talent rich area, Maryland is adjacent to a talent rich area. USC recruits like a king, UCLA/Maryland get their share of blue chip recruits for football despite being seen as more of basketball brands. Rutgers is on the East Coast and at least has access to Mid-Atlantic recruiting grounds.
Nebraska is the only school in a non-pro state with huge support and a strong brand in the Plains. Yes it’s the smallest public in the Big Ten and lags in terms of research expenditures/academic prestige.
You can see the sustainability argument for all of those.
It’s just not there for Oregon. If Oregon is bad at football, you have a school far behind Nebraska by any academic metric, and the enrollment is well behind Oregon State despite not being a “public Ivy” where you’d expect smaller enrollment like UVa/UNC. And Oregon is a smaller market, Eugene is hard to get to…
They’re nowhere near major recruiting grounds.
Washington and Arizona State in fact are the only 2 other schools in the Pac-12 that make sense from a sustainability standpoint, so they’re the 2 to watch imo.
Arizona State is likely to be among the next AAU members, perhaps at the top of the list (look at their research expenditures/graduate metrics that have exploded since Nebraska was kicked out and leaked the AAU metrics).
Both Washington and Arizona State have gigantic enrollments and are located in the largest markets in the West outside of California. Washington has stronger support than Arizona State but I can see Arizona State come on in the future as their enrollment is huge.
Just feels like the argument is for waiting and seeing what happens because you want schools that make sense in 20 or 40 or 60 years. Washington is the only one that makes sense immediately, but I don’t see 2 Washingtons out there unless Arizona State makes sense in 10 or 15 years.
LikeLike
Yep, after the B10 adds the Bay Area schools and then ND+Miami in the 2030’s (assuming the SEC adds FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVa), the B10 will add UW and ASU in the 2040’s. If UVa (or FSU) also join, UW likely also makes it in by the ‘30’s. The the schools that may be added in the ‘40’s then may be ASU and CU.
And Colin would finally be happy.
LikeLike
I feel like I’m in the “wait and see” camp.
I think Stanford and Washington make sense, just depends when and what partners they’d come with or when…
Arizona State is a bet on the future, have to see what they become first imo. If they reach the Washington tier of school, I’d be interested…
Oregon is good right now in football, but everything else about them is a questionmark, including travel accessibility.
Cal, Colorado, Utah, Arizona are hard to make a case for now or in the future. I just don’t see any of those offering enough without being dilutive, and I’m not sure they ever will.
So that’s sort of where I am with the Pac-12 schools.
Beyond that I think we just focus on the ACC where the bigger action is, especially around FSU and Miami.
LikeLike
I agree 100% that ASU is the dark horse candidate. I can see them rounding out the west wing in place of Cal.
LikeLike
It’s pretty delusional to think that FSU will join the BiG. Nobody else in the ACC is worth materially more to the conference than anyone in the west, and that might be a charitable assessment.
LikeLike
I’d put Miami, Clemson, and UNC also above every remaining Pac-12 school in terms of value to the Big Ten. (Clemson obviously won’t be coming to the Big Ten, not a cultural fit at all, and FSU is likely a lock to the SEC given its location in the middle of a bunch of SEC schools as well as the cultural fit there).
Recruiting grounds and population demographics of the Southeast are way more valuable than the West outside of Southern California.
FSU, Miami, and Clemson can win national championships with their access to recruits. Those schools also should have higher ratings than anyone out West when they’re at championship level quality. FSU and Clemson have shown that in the recent past; Miami can do that too.
Nobody outside of USC can be assumed to be able to do that.
If I was making a list of available schools and their values to the Big Ten:
1) ND
2) FSU
3) Miami
4) Clemson
5) UNC
6) Washington
7) UVa or Va Tech
8) Stanford
So yeah, it’s pretty clear to me that the ACC is the absolute priority here given there’s a bunch of schools there that the Big Ten presidents might covet ahead of most of the Pac-12 remaining schools.
LikeLike
I agree with your top five. We can only hope the SEC doesn’t defensively take Miami. The rest of the ACC schools on your list I believe are a lost cause.
LikeLike
The good news for the B10 is that the SEC seems to be focused on different priorities that the B10. They don’t need Miami for demographics or football recruiting grounds or football prowess (which they have plenty of). Rather, they seem focused on UNC and UVa and/or Duke (none of which are additive and some which likely are dilutive) for reasons of academic prestige, basketball, and capturing the entire Confederacy. To pay for those schools (just so they don’t have to decrease the per capita payout), they’ll take FSU (and maybe Clemson). But the SEC definitely values the top academic schools in NC & VA more than they do Miami. In any case, even with FSU and Clemson, adding on all of Miami, UNC, Duke, and UVa would definitely be dilutive, so some of those schools will be available to the B10. The B10 probably does need ND to pay for some new ACC additions, though, if they can’t get FSU.
LikeLike
Yeah I’m with you, I think Miami will clearly be available to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
First you agree that FSU ain’t happening.
Second, you say Clemson is worth a ton to the BiG, but won’t happen because it’s not a cultural fit. So, sort of self-contradictory. Value to the BiG does not reside only in football potential, as you tacitly acknowledge.
Third, you give credit to Miami for being good eons ago, but no credit to Washington’s pretty storied football history – including a recent CFP appearance – even though Washington is in a much bigger TV market, has a more enthused fan base than Miami, is a much stronger school academically, and is also the flagship university for the state.
Fourth, the only reason UNC is a thing on this blog appears to be because Jim Delaney coveted them. Merits aside, which I don’t think are strong, politics and cultural fit will very likely keep them out of the BiG.
So, realistically, your list is:
1) ND
2) Miami
3) Washington
4) UVA or VTech
5) Stanford
My order would be:
1) ND
2) UVA (or, less likely, VTech)
3) Washington
4) Stanford
5) Miami
6) Cal
7) Maybe Georgia Tech
LikeLike
You’re severely underestimating Miami’s brand and recruiting grounds. Miami is always in the top 20 in terms of blue chip ratio/talent composite (#13 in 2021). Doesn’t mean the results are there, but the basic ingredients for success are when the football team is >50% made up of 4-5 star recruits.
It has nothing to do with Miami being good 20 years ago; Miami recruits at a much higher level than Washington because there’s dozens of 4-5 stars within a stone’s throw of the campus and they get a good share of them as the only major conference team in South Florida. And the brand/city is glitzy, however tacky you think the turnover chain and stuff like that is.
And you’re also underestimating the same thing for UNC. UNC’s athletics brand and location in a high growth state that’s already past 10 million residents (and has very high intensity support for college athletics – those markets appear in top 20-25 regularly for college football viewership despite being split 5-6 ways) means that they recruit at a higher level than most of the Big Ten outside of the giant brands of Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State.
If I had to bet on two schools being good in the next 20 or 30 years on that list, it’s those two because of recruiting/location/athletics brands.
UVa and Va Tech are definitely below UNC, if the Big Ten or SEC could only choose one of those states to be in; they’d both choose UNC.
LikeLike
But yes, if UNC is off the table, I think that means you have to take Miami at the top of the list.
It’s realistically the only school available that recruits at a necessary level to win the whole thing; and any school that does that is going to pull huge ratings when they’re challenging at that kind of level. And Miami’s the kind of town where the support will be there if they’re good.
Having a school in Virginia would be nice, but neither of those schools is on the same level as Miami or Washington in my mind.
Even Stanford is probably more competitive than either in a long-term sense because Stanford’s still seen as the “choice” school for the most academic minded blue chip recruits (they always win a solid share of those due to the top 5 academic prestige making them the first choice).
Virginia or Va Tech is just a pure demographics play; not really adding much competitively.
LikeLike
The top option could be “do nothing, unless it’s Notre Dame.” Just because X+Y are the best non-ND options does not actually mean that you necessarily want X+Y. If Washington plus Stanford are so compelling, there would be no reason not to have invited them already. (ACC schools not available now due to the GOR.)
LikeLike
Right, none of the remaining schools on the table (outside the SEC and B10) are extremely compelling except for ND and FSU. And the B10 might be able to sell TV execs on the potential of Miami. Hence why nothing has been consummated yet. The B10 probably wants to add the the Bay Area schools for many compelling non-TV money reasons, but they’re trying to figure out how to make the TV money part make sense.
LikeLike
Richard wrote: “I expect the B10 to sell ESPN really hard on idea that 15 After Dark games (like played at West Coast locales (including some brand names) is worth $150mm/year.”
They’d have to choose the game participants with surgical precision. I am sure Penn State will never be asked to play at 10:30pm ET: they are simply too valuable in the other time slots. Expect a steady diet of Indiana at USC and Purdue at Stanford. Now, can you come up with 13 more games of that caliber that don’t cannibalize the more valuable TV windows?
LikeLike
Yeah the scheduling gets very tight on the “Big Ten After Dark” windows with just 4 schools in the West.
You don’t want USC in that slot as much as say UCLA + 2 other schools, let’s just use Washington/Stanford for this example.
You want UCLA, Washington, Stanford each playing like upwards to 4 After Dark home games.
USC might have upwards to 2.
And you don’t want those games against Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State for sure. Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska games might also be worth trying to put in different windows.
It’s just a very difficult ask to pull off; it may be possible, but as you note, coming up with the matchups so that every week you have one is tough with just 3 or 4 teams.
And it may not be worth it financially to do it with 5 or 6 teams. So it’s just difficult all around.
Though maybe you guarantee 10 games in that slot instead of 14; a number like 10 would be easier to pull off, but would it be worth $150 million a year or so?
LikeLike
So, there are several ideas:
1. The After Dark window doesn’t have to be 10:30. If it starts 9 or 9:30 Eastern, you then can include games hosted in the Central time zone and also include all the Eastern time zone visiting teams. But that encroaches on NBC’s window. Is NBC’s exclusivity only about OTA games? What about streamers? What about Peacock (NBC maybe more comfortable if an overlapping streamer is its own).
2. The After Dark window will have the 4th pick. It seems like the B10 will allow the carriers to dictate game dates and times, so the After Dark carrier will pick after Fox, NBC, and CBS pick. So something like the 45th-60th best games. Almost all of the OSU/PSU/UMich conference games would be taken as well as all the king-prince matchups and probably all the prince-prince matchups. The best of what’s left will be games like PU@Wisconsin, UNL@Stanford, UIUC@UCLA, MSU@NU, Minny@USC. I’m curious about how much ND will get for 7 games (mostly vs a G5 lineup). They average maybe 2mm viewers without the big time opponents. If the Domers get $75mm for 7 games, $150mm for 15 After Dark games might be possible.
LikeLike
So, there are several ideas:
1. The After Dark window doesn’t have to be 10:30. If it starts 9 or 9:30 Eastern, you then can include games hosted in the Central time zone and also include all the Eastern time zone visiting teams. But that encroaches on NBC’s window. Is NBC’s exclusivity only about OTA games? What about streamers? What about Peacock (NBC maybe more comfortable if an overlapping streamer is its own).
2. The After Dark window will have the 4th pick. It seems like the B10 will allow the carriers to dictate game dates and times, so the After Dark carrier will pick after Fox, NBC, and CBS pick. So something like the 45th-60th best games. Almost all of the OSU/PSU/UMich conference games would be taken as well as all the king-prince matchups and probably all the prince-prince matchups. The best of what’s left will be games like PU@Wisconsin, UNL@Stanford, UIUC@UCLA, MSU@NU, Minny@USC. I’m curious about how much ND will get for 7 games (mostly vs a G5 lineup). They average maybe 2mm viewers without the big time opponents. If the Domers get $75mm for 7 games, $150mm for 15 After Dark games (starting 9:30PM Eastern) might be possible.
LikeLike
If the Domers get $75mm for 7 games, $150mm for 15 After Dark games (starting 9:30PM Eastern) might be possible.
How could that be possible? If ND gets $75mm for 7 games, that is $10.7mm per game. But their home schedule usually has at least one marquee opponent, and every game is either in the afternoon or in prime time. The Big Ten late-night package would be out of prime time, and would include none of the best games.
If ND is worth $10.7mm a game, then how could B1G After Dark be worth $10mm? (The latest rumors are that NBC is offering more like $60–65mm per year for the next ND contract.)
LikeLike
BTW, Marc, I didn’t see that I could reply to you here so see below.
But another data point that shows that $150mm for an After Dark package may not be outside the realm of possibility is that ESPN offered the leftover PAC between 200-300mm (and the PAC seems to think it can get 300mm/year).
Maybe half of that value is in an After Dark package. Yes, the leftover Pac would have a handful of compelling games that would be shown in a traditional slot but besides the After Dark-level games, a lot of flotsam and jetsam that few people want to watch.
If the B10 included some hosting CT teams and some visiting teams that actually have sizeable fanbases, they might be able to make the financial math work. And the CT schools can be promised that they’ll only have to host one game a year in the After Dark (9PM local) slot. It could even be made in to an event (like the PSU Whiteout).
LikeLike
I don’t think you can start the late window at 9 or 9:30. That’s way too much overlap with the primetime games, not just within the B10 but also SEC and others. The value comes from it being the only game on. If people miss the first half, there goes half the value. The game might as well have started at 8 and had a chance to get more ET viewers.
Also, fans don’t want to watch games after midnight. A 9:30 local start would have a game ending at 1 am or later. That’s a rough time to empty a large stadium, and guarantees no kids attend. Imagine needing to drive home for a couple of hours after that – I think it would be dangerous. Many CT team fans travel a long way for games (NE, IA, MN, WI, IL).
If you want to do overlap windows, do them in the afternoon. Kickoff at 1:30 ET to get people as noon games go to halftime or if they become blowouts. Start another at 5, to pick up everyone during that lull before primetime games. You could put BTN/FS1 games in those windows. The late window needs to be separate to work.
LikeLike
Hmm. Though around 1AM, I can’t imagine the roads are all that crowded around any of those CT schools. At the CT schools, the After Dark games probably can’t take place in Nov. though if the B10 is allowing the channels to schedule games, that won’t be an issue.
So say 10PM Eastern (9PM local) for games in the central time zone. I wonder if that would work.
Both the B10 and SEC has started games at 8:15PM local before.
LikeLike
They aren’t busy, but they are dark with drunk drivers on them as you get into the country. Sending tens of thousands of people down country roads at 2 am isn’t a great idea. Even if they haven’t been drinking, many of the others have. Plus the risk of roads freezing over that late, and all the cops that need to be out directing traffic away from the stadium.
I think it’d get significant pushback.
LikeLike
That’s why I said no After Dark games in the Midwest in Nov.
How many places in B10 country freeze over in Oct? I suppose you could say the After Dark games don’t take place in MN, IA, and WI in late Oct either.
LikeLike
But fine, limit the Midwest After Dark games to the first 6 weeks of the season, then.
I think that is one reason why Warren is perfectly fine with pushing the CFB season to start and end earlier (also no significant Thanksgiving/Black Friday traditions besides UNL, less competition with the NFL, and more Friday nights with no HS football so more B10 schools OK with playing then).
If the CFB regular season ended the traditional B10 rivalry week (before Thanksgiving), or even the week before that, B10 schools would be able to host night games virtually every week without much discomfort for fans.
LikeLike
Do we really need halftimes anymore? Single platoon football ended a century ago. Teams could just stay on the field for a ten-minute break and start playing again.
And yes, I played four years of HS football and started on both offense and defense and all special teams my senior year. A 127-lb middle linebacker and offensive guard for the Tipton Blue Devels. Also co-captain who called all defensive signals. I had plenty of problems but being tired wasn’t one of them.
LikeLike
I think people are underestimating the likely quality of the 4th game pick in an 18-team BiG. IIRC, the current after-dark game is the #3 Pac-12 pick. Even if you rule out Michigan, tOSU, and PSU for after-dark games because they are in the eastern time zone and will mostly be top-3 game picks, that would leave Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois to go up against USC, UCLA, and potentially Washington & Stanford. And you could force MSU and decent Purdue teams to play a game.
Plus, UCLA & Stanford often play decent-quality OOC night home games in September and some of the central time teams play home games at night regularly in September (albeit not with 9:15pm start times). Finally, the western teams would happily play an after-dark road game in the BiG! So there could be a number of very solid games.
LikeLike
Colin, well, they need halftime to sell extra commercials, but that’s about it.
ND I agree with Redwood. 4th pick in the B10 (even mostly without OSU/PSU/UMich or any MSU home games) is still pretty good.
That’d be true even if UNL, Wisconsin, and Iowa aren’t forced to play an After Dark game at home, I reckon.
LikeLike
Even if you rule out Michigan, tOSU, and PSU for after-dark games because they are in the eastern time zone and will mostly be top-3 game picks, that would leave Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois to go up against USC, UCLA, and potentially Washington & Stanford. And you could force MSU and decent Purdue teams to play a game.
You are right about the math, but perhaps not the strategy. If you are running the Big Ten, do you want Nebraska @USC at 10:30pm ET? That’s a relatively valuable game that you are putting in the graveyard shift. Same thing with MSU @Washington, to give another example.
I think the Big Ten schedule-makers arrange the season so that such games are invariably among the top 3 in whatever week they are played. Those match-ups might not be Ohio State-Michigan, but they are not games you would want to bury at a time when most viewers are asleep.
LikeLike
Marc: If a game makes it in to an After Dark slot, by definition, it’s already been passed over by Fox, CBS, and NBC. So instead of the After Dark slot, it either gets lost in the abyss that is FS1 or goes on BTN.
Also, it seems like the networks will be able to set dates and times. In effect, After Dark would get the 45-60 best games. If they don’t go in the After Dark slot, they drop down to FS1 or the BTN where even fewer people will see them.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I think the Big Ten schedule-makers arrange the season so that such games are invariably among the top 3 in whatever week they are played. Those match-ups might not be Ohio State-Michigan, but they are not games you would want to bury at a time when most viewers are asleep.”
For this analysis:
Kings = OSU, MI, PSU, USC
Princes = NE, WI, IA, MSU, UCLA
With 16 teams, there will be 72 B10 games (out of 120 possibilities) + 40 OOC games roughly.
Possible:
KK = 6
KP = 20
PP = 10
Total = 36
72/120 get played, or 60%.
Played on average:
KK = 3.6
KP = 12
PP = 6
Total = 21.6
OOC (assume each K or P plays 1 P or better):
KP = 4
PP = 5
Total = 9
Overall total = 30.6
That’s about 2.2 per week if they are spread out evenly, which we know they aren’t (rivalry week, early weeks for OOC).
Based on my set of 3 locked rival, locked games:
KK = 4 (leaves 2)
KP = 3 (leaves 17)
PP = 3 (leaves 7)
Half of all other games are played:
KK = 4 + 1 = 5
KP = 3 + 8.5 = 11.5
PP = 3 + 3.5 = 6.5
Total = 23
Overall total = 32
That’s about 2.3 per week if they are spread out evenly, which we know they aren’t (rivalry week, early weeks for OOC).
The point is, 3rd picks gets you well into K vs other games, so the 4th picks will typically be P vs other.
I’m not arguing for or against anything with that, just setting expectations.
LikeLike
Brian, I agree. I had gone down the list and that’s why I specifically listed the games I did: PU@Wisconsin, UNL@Stanford, UIUC@UCLA, MSU@NU, Minny@USC
BTW, for TV purposes, OSU, UMich, and PSU are above USC in that they can get several million viewers playing nobodies while the Trojans can’t. Troy vs another king means massive ratings but not Troy vs nonroyalty.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Also, it seems like the networks will be able to set dates and times.”
TV has long set kickoff times within certain limitations, but dates? They can get some F games in advance, but the B10 has never let them shift a gameday on 2 weeks notice. And they certainly can’t tell the schools when to schedule their OOC games. Maybe the B10 listens about spreading around the valuable B10 games, but I think the B10 already wants that to happen.
“In effect, After Dark would get the 45-60 best games. If they don’t go in the After Dark slot, they drop down to FS1 or the BTN where even fewer people will see them.”
Fewer overall, but maybe more in the eastern footprint of the B10. The B10 needs to balance those things to a certain extent.
LikeLike
The point is, 3rd picks gets you well into K vs other games, so the 4th picks will typically be P vs other.
Correct. That was exactly as I thought. So now, back to the question…do those games bring enough value to justify screwing the road teams (and their fans) that are forced to play them?
In the bulk of these games the road team would be from the lower half of the conference, as games involving the top half would usually get picked up earlier. This means OSU, PSU, and Michigan would almost never be asked to play the graveyard shift. Nebraska, MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa would usually avoid it too.
It’s not like BTN, which is terrible, but every team is forced to play on it a couple times a year, which evens out the burden. And BTN, as bad as it is, doesn’t play havoc on your body clock. Here, it would be a steady diet of the Illinois and Indiana schools, Maryland, Rutgers, and Minnesota in the late window.
LikeLike
Brian, the B10 won’t release schedules now until after the season before is done, so I think that is what that is all about. All parties get together to draft games and put them where they want them. So games won’t shift dates after the season starts but the networks will determine the dates of games before a schedule goes out (possibly with times too).
LikeLike
Marc, I didn’t say this circle would be easy to square. Yes, ND usually has at least 1 marquee opponent at home but NBC is also running the single-program risk of ND being bad for several years in a row and thus dragging down that package’s value. With a conference package, you’re more guaranteed a floor.
I don’t think $150mm is completely unreasonable considering that CBS/NBC is paying $350mm for 15 games that might(?) average 4mm viewers a game (with their collection of 1st/2nd/3rd picks) + 1-2 CCGs out of 7 years (and a few crappy games for Peacock). And that 4mm viewer average is on the optimistic side.
So I think ND is taking a steep discount just to stay independent.
LikeLike
Brian, the B10 won’t release schedules now until after the season before is done, so I think that is what that is all about. All parties get together to draft games and put them where they want them. So games won’t shift dates after the season starts but the networks will determine the dates of games before a schedule goes out (possibly with times too).
Marc, with 18 schools, the B10 would have 81 conference games, and some of the OOC games would also be top 3 picks. But half the conference would be kings or princes (and Stanford arguably could count as a prince too as they’re often really good). So games 45-60 would still be pretty attractive especially when you consider that there would be some attractive OOC games in there too. As for the body clock excuse, frankly, it’s an excuse. Teams will have a week to adjust back and forth. For that Stanford loss to NU where they used the body clock excuse, Stanford actually has an entire summer to adjust as that was the first game of the year.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, the B10 won’t release schedules now until after the season before is done, so I think that is what that is all about.”
But it could also be many other things. It could be wanting to do parity-based scheduling. It could be not wanting to waste effort if more expansion happens. It could be because the TV deals don’t stabilize until 2024. It could be because they need a few years top decide what works with UCLA and USC, including USC/ND.
They either have to give schools the game weekends well in advance (esp. for early week games) or accept that schools will schedule OOC games whenever they want and the B10 will have to schedule around that. So it may be pseudo-scheduled in advance instead of done in detail.
You don’t know and neither does anyone else here.
“All parties get together to draft games and put them where they want them.”
They can’t do that with OOC games, and certain B10 games they can’t move either.
LikeLike
Yes, Brian, I don’t know for certain. That’s why I said “I think” instead of “I know”. And yes, OOC games can’t be moved (unless both schools involved agree to that). And yes, I am aware than a few rivalry games have traditional dates (but only a very few; only the OSU-UMich game and the Bucket game have always been at the end of year within my lifetime).
Thank you, Brian, for pointing out the obvious. I don’t know where I would be without you.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Also, it seems like the networks will be able to set dates and times. In effect, After Dark would get the 45-60 best games. If they don’t go in the After Dark slot, they drop down to FS1 or the BTN where even fewer people will see them.”
—
““Brian, the B10 won’t release schedules now until after the season before is done, so I think that is what that is all about.”
But it could also be many other things. …
You don’t know and neither does anyone else here.
“Yes, Brian, I don’t know for certain.””
Then maybe you should say that in your argument for P12 after dark, not just blithely assume it like its common knowledge. It is based completely on your opinion, but you spin it like sources have been saying it and its all but a fait accompli.
LikeLike
If someone says “I think”, most readers would not think the writer is blithely assuming it like its common knowledge or spinning it like sources have been saying it and its all but a fait accompli.
So Brian, I’m not responsible for your poor reading comprehension skills.
LikeLike
Marc, with 18 schools, the B10 would have 81 conference games…so games 45-60 would still be pretty attractive
This seems to be an argument for not playing those games at 10:30pm. If they are so attractive, don’t you want them played when Big Ten fans want to watch?
It’s different for the Pac-12, because their teams are in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. For them and their fans, the times are not so unreasonable. However, it does mean that very few fans in the Eastern half of the country are watching.
As for the body clock excuse, frankly, it’s an excuse. Teams will have a week to adjust back and forth. For that Stanford loss to NU where they used the body clock excuse, Stanford actually has an entire summer to adjust as that was the first game of the year.
I assume you have traveled before. Jet lag is a real thing. It is something extra you have to prepare for, and some teams would take the hit disproportionately. I am guessing Purdue would play in the late window a lot more often than Michigan would.
LikeLike
Marc, I’d imagine the After Dark slot would feature a lot of West Coast teams and some Central time zone teams. Relatively few Eastern time zone teams (who are either too attractive or not attractive enough to be picked; MSU probably the only ET team to feature regularly).
And the After Dark timeslot is being proposed because of the exclusive windows that Fox, CBS, and NBC all have (likely to get them to pay up).
Also, both B10 and SEC teams have played 9PM or 9:15PM Eastern start games before (including Eastern time zone teams). A 10PM Eastern start isn’t a huge change.
LikeLike
None of the ACC schools, including Notre Dame, is available for the next 12 years. That’s an infinity in college sports, two whole media rights cycles. None of the B12 schools are desirable, except Texas and Oklahoma, and they are off the table. The B1G can’t outbid the SEC.
So if there is to be an further expansion of the B1G, it will have to come from the remaining PAC schools. So, which, if any, of the remainders do you want?
I would go with Colorado, Washington, Arizona State, and Stanford. None of them are kings, but all are nobility. All of them are in/near major markets. All are good to extremely excellent academically.
Notre Dame may never come. In 12 years, you might not want them. If students are getting salaries then, Notre Dame (and several other big names) might be out of college athletics.
LikeLike
Expansion is a forever decision. Viewed that way, the remaining term of the ACC deal is trivial. If they truly prefer the ACC schools, then they should wait.
LikeLike
Is Notre Dame becoming increasingly less important to the B1G?
Everyone agrees – and it probably is literally unanimous – that ND is choice one for expansion, but ND plays very hard to get.
Despite the increasing belief that the B1G will take four more west coast teams, that makes no sense unless those after dark games are worth a lot of money. I expect two.
I can understand subsidizing Stanford, due to their Olympic sports, academic excellence, money, and tolerable football. Washington might not really need to be subsidized much at all. Cal is a problem. How much does Cal bring to the B1G, other than academic prestige, which is not the key to anything?
Finally Oregon. If Phil Knight gave Oregon sports $500 million to be utilized at the rate of $25 per year for 20 years (ignoring earnings on the funds), that would be the subsidy to OR, which could take $25 million per year less from the B1G. Of course that is not going to happen and does not solve academic concerns.
So if the B1G takes Washington and Stanford, that is 18 teams. Let us say that in 2028, ND finally is ready and brings $200 million to the B1G, which would then be 19 teams. B1G teams at that point would be north of $90 million each and perhaps closer to $100 million.
ND would then be bringing about $100M extra to the league, which is about $5 million and change to the other 18 teams. At that point ND is not making an important financial contribution.
Yes, ND is a king and is an extremely hot pick, but how long does ND get to play coy, before the B1G just says that if ND wants to join call us, because we are not chasing you any more?
LikeLike
If Phil Knight gave Oregon sports $500 million to be utilized at the rate of $25 per year for 20 years (ignoring earnings on the funds), that would be the subsidy to OR, which could take $25 million per year less from the B1G.
I believe the Big Ten views expansion as a “forever” decision. Even if Phil is willing to do that, I do not think the Big Ten takes Oregon unless it makes sense in years twenty-one and beyond. Granted, it’s hard to calculate that far in advance, but you still try. You do not want a school that is perpetually on different terms than everyone else. Other schools have had buy-ins, but never a 20-year buy-in.
Yes, ND is a king and is an extremely hot pick, but how long does ND get to play coy, before the B1G just says that if ND wants to join call us, because we are not chasing you any more?
I suggest that the answer is never. I mean…the B1G’s strategy does not depend on ND saying yes—that would be a very poor strategy. But they will always play nice with the Irish.
LikeLike
Bernie, I think both Cal and Stanford are hopeless. Cal has a very little football fan base. Stanford has only 17,000 students and of those, only 7,000 are undergrads. As a comparison, USC has 44,000 with 21,000 undergrads.
There is really no way that Stanford can be justified other than as an ND add along.
LikeLike
My comment was totally predicated on the assumption that the B1G was going to add additional west coast teams. Personally, I do not think that is anywhere close to a given, but I used “conventional wisdom”.
If the B1G is to add west coast teams, which ones? I think that Cal and Oregon are both lost causes, unless ESPN or someone comes up with a truly ridiculous number for the late night games. Even then that may not be enough.
That leaves Washington and Stanford as the only two options still standing.
LikeLike
Bernie: “That leaves Washington and Stanford as the only two options still standing.”
I’ll propose a third option. Utah is ranked # 7, Salt Lake City has a good TV market with no NFL presence and an archrival less than one hour away that is also top 25.
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/fbs/associated-press
LikeLike
SLC is a small market, dude. At least propose ASU in Phoenix.
LikeLike
Richard: “SLC is a small market, dude. At least propose ASU in Phoenix.”
If the Big Ten expands, we need schools with good fan bases. ASU and Washington play in empty stadiums (links) as the locals all go flooding to the NFL. Utah has a string of 66 straight sell-outs going back over ten years.
https://www.si.com/college/washington/football/husky-stadium-running-on-empty-for-fans
https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/heat-index/2017/11/08/asu-football-attendance-sun-devil-stadium-fans-z/837237001/
https://www.deseret.com/2021/10/14/22727073/in-an-effort-to-get-fans-in-rice-eccles-stadium-utah-football-offers-concessions-discount-asu-utes
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten does not care about AP poll current rankings at all. If Utah is among the schools the Big Ten is looking at, it is a very well kept secret. Salt Lake City is approximately the #30 TV market. Seattle–Tacoma is #12. That combo probably does not move the needle enough.
LikeLike
Colin,
“If the Big Ten expands, we need schools with good fan bases.”
Do we? How is good defined? I thought the main concern was TV revenue. Can good fans watch on TV but not attend? Can good fans be distributed nationally but not in large numbers locally? I think good CFB brands also matter.
” ASU and Washington play in empty stadiums (links) as the locals all go flooding to the NFL. Utah has a string of 66 straight sell-outs going back over ten years.”
Butts in seats are a good metric of fan fervor, but they don’t actually make TV revenue.
View at Medium.com
Most viewed teams:
28. Washington (1.32M)
32. UCLA (1.25M)
34. Indiana (1.17M)
40. Northwestern (867K)
41. Utah (856K)
50. Arizona State (695K)
54. Maryland (681K)
55. Purdue (620K)
58. Colorado (610K)
I think the heat makes ASU attendance tough. You undervalue UW.
LikeLike
Brian: “You undervalue UW.”
Well, not really. Remember just last week we were all talking about USC not wanting any more West Coast schools and making additions that would ease the travel burdens on USC and UCLA? Those weren’t my issues, that’s what was reported in the news. And both considerations seem logical. For both the LA schools and the rest of the Big Ten, Washington is the worst logistical choice for team travel.
There are a host of factors to consider other than TV market alone. When you add them all up, Utah is a strong candidate.
LikeLike
Colin, no, the B10 won’t add UNL-lite (UO) or UO-lite (Utah).
Especially since, unlike the Huskers, they won’t even contribute traveling fans to juice ticket sales at B10W stadiums.
LikeLike
Colin, once you get on a plane, UW isn’t much different than CU or Utah.
The only schools that may alleviate travel concerns for the LA schools are the Bay Area schools.
LikeLike
The only school that could be a travel partner for USC is UCLA and they already have an invite. For olympic sports if both are going to the same invitational it may be effective to share a charter flight. The B10 could schedule games at schools that are close (Indiana, Purdue) for a single trip, etc. The B12 does that for WV.
If the B10 wants more PAC teams, they invite them before USC joins. Based on USCs statements I expect they will be a hard NO on any further PAC invites except as a Notre Dame partner. USC cannot block a PAC invite alone, but it sort of blows up “making it easier for USC/UCLA” excuse for taking lower distributions if those schools are against it.
LikeLike
Richard: ” . . . once you get on a plane, UW isn’t much different than CU or Utah.”
Starting from where? LA, Lincoln, Iowa City?
LikeLike
Colin,
Brian: “You undervalue UW.”
In this case I was referring to UW’s viewership numbers. People do watch them, with many of those presumably in the Seattle area.
https://www.pacifictakes.com/2020/5/27/21272206/pac-12-football-ranking-teams-attendance-5-year-oregon-washington-usc-ucla-colorado-arizona-stanford
UW is #1 in attendance in the P12, and #3 in % of capacity at 94.85%. They don’t play in an empty stadium.
LikeLike
Brian: “UW is #1 in attendance in the P12, and #3 in % of capacity at 94.85%. They don’t play in an empty stadium.”
Actually, I believe my eyes more than the numbers cooked up by the conference.
LikeLike
Based on USCs statements I expect they will be a hard NO on any further PAC invites except as a Notre Dame partner.
I do not recall any USC statement to that effect. There are unsourced media reports that USC/UCLA would prefer not to have any more Pacific time zone schools join the Big Ten. We don’t know exactly who said that, to whom they said it, in what context, or with what caveats. This is the problem with unsourced reports.
I would be surprised if the Big Ten agreed to any such thing. Why would you grant two new members a veto over what the other 14 might otherwise want? The Big Ten obviously wanted USC/UCLA enough to grant them full shares. But USC/UCLA were also somewhat desperate, and they did not have any better option. They were not exactly in a position to lay down the law.
The nearest recent analogue is that Texas A&M probably did not want Texas not join the SEC. But guess what happened.
LikeLike
I said that USC could not stop it, but it would kill the excuse that the PAC invite was to benefit USC/UCLA if they were against it. USC did shut down any consideration of B12 candidates after TX/OK announced exit. USC greatest leverage to bring along schools of its choice was when it negotiated its entry. No unsourced reports that they wanted more PAC schools, only ones that they did not want anyone else.
LikeLike
Colin, from anywhere.
Denver and SLC probably have as many direct flights from Iowa City and Lincoln as Seattle does.
You act like an extra hour or 2 on a plane is a massive deal.
Or wait, are you suggesting that Iowa would bus their athletes 11+ hours to Boulder?
LikeLike
Richard: “Or wait, are you suggesting that Iowa would bus their athletes 11+ hours to Boulder?”
No. I’m suggesting that a shorter flight to a full stadium in Salt Lake City would be better than a longer flight to an empty stadium in Seattle.
LikeLike
I’ll take published stats for all the schools vs anonymous pictures from someone on the internet with an ax to grind.
LikeLike
Brian: “I’ll take published stats for all the schools vs anonymous pictures from someone on the internet with an ax to grind.”
The photos aren’t anonymous. They’re from Sports Illustrated. SI has an ax to grind?
LikeLike
I clicked on the pics. Top one that shows Husky stadium was dated 9/11/2013 which is a Wednesday. Bottom one was from SI and labeled Arkansas State. Game played against Washington 9/18/2021 with final score 52-3. Cannot tell from the pic if that was pre-game, but buy games always have the lowest attendance. Typical internet pictures.
LikeLike
Context matters.
Many reasons have contributed to the attendance decline, among them remaining pandemic fears, a resistance to COVID-19 vaccination or testing requirements, decidedly poor weather, an unattractive non-conference schedule and, on top of it all, a bad football team.
Bad attendance in 2021 is not the same as a history of weak attendance.
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2021/09/125042/ohio-state-announces-76540-gameday-attendance-lowest-since-1946
OMG! OSU has terrible attendance and plays in an empty stadium. The B10 should kick them out.
LikeLike
Little8,
“I clicked on the pics. Top one that shows Husky stadium was dated 9/11/2013 which is a Wednesday. Bottom one was from SI and labeled Arkansas State. Game played against Washington 9/18/2021 with final score 52-3. Cannot tell from the pic if that was pre-game, but buy games always have the lowest attendance. Typical internet pictures.”
More context:
The bottom one in the second post with pictures is a picture of the student section with 3:47 left in the 4th quarter with the score 45-3 and rainy weather in that Ark St game. I’m sure that’s perfectly representative of attendance throughout the stadium in every game.
The top one in the first post is from pregame warmups (6 specialists and some grad assistants are on the field). The bottom one is also from the Ark St game, no telling when.
The top one in the second post shows the band on the field (and no players, coaches, assistants, etc.), so it could be pregame or postgame. They are spelling GRIZ, so it’s likely against I-AA MT.
The SI article is about poor attendance in 2021. In addition to COVID impacts, the team was terrible (4-8) and the coach got fired late in the season for pushing a player on top of all the losing. They lost the opener to MT despite being 23.5 pt favorites, then lost to MI. Then they played Ark. St in the rain (official attendance over 58,000). The article also mentions the ASU game, which had weather in the 40s and rainy. The picture shows it dark but the game started at 4pm local time. UW gave up 3 straight TDs in the 4th quarter to blow the game, so maybe this was after fans started leaving early. Official attendance was almost 58,000.
LikeLike
Here’s another metric:
Attendance Oregon Spring Game – 40,000
Attendance Washington Spring Game – Fewer than 100
https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/look-attendance-at-washingtons-spring-game-is-awful
LikeLike
Little8, USC was able to shut down Pac-12 expansion with Big-12 teams, because the votes were already there – at least Stanford, Cal, and likely UCLA were against it. Plus, as an original member of a conference with a lot of history, USC had influence. Inside the BiG, it will have very little. Do they even have any natural potential allies?
LikeLike
As I said USC can shoot down the excuse that a dilutive expansion to add more PAC schools is to help USC/UCLA. If Warren et.al. can get a TV bid that will make any PAC pair additive that will go a long way in convincing the current 14 members that they should consider an invite. Getting the B10 members to take less money to add UW, California, etc. is going to be a hard sale. Any PAC school with ND will be additive. The B10 has gone long periods without adding anyone and given what is available now (rest of PAC and B12) it might be best to wait 10 years for the ACC GOR to get close to expiration.
LikeLike
Attendance Oregon Spring Game – 40,000
Attendance Washington Spring Game – Fewer than 100
You’ve got us there, Colin. Spring game attendance is definitely a key stat the Big Ten presidents are looking at.
LikeLike
Marc: “Spring game attendance is definitely a key stat the Big Ten presidents are looking at.”
We were discussing fan interest and game attendance at U of Washington. Fact is that game attendance and fan interest is the lowest in 40 years and that will probably drop further after USC and UCLA depart.
https://www.si.com/college/washington/football/husky-stadium-running-on-empty-for-fans
Meanwhile, Utah completed an $80 million stadium expansion last year and has sold out every game for over ten years.
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/2021/08/12/university-utah-offers/
LikeLike
We were discussing fan interest and game attendance at U of Washington. Fact is that game attendance and fan interest is the lowest in 40 years and that will probably drop further after USC and UCLA depart.
The facts change with every post. First you said their stadium was empty. Then we posted the attendance figures, and you replied with cherry-picked photos purporting to show otherwise. Then we found that those photos were taken on weekdays, or during warm-ups, or late fourth quarter of blow-out wins against FCS foes. Then you moved onto spring game attendance. At this point, you have lost the attendance argument.
Meanwhile, Utah completed an $80 million stadium expansion last year and has sold out every game for over ten years.
They have sold out a far smaller facility. Even after expansion, I believe only two current Big Ten stadiums seat less than Utah’s. If you sell out a tiny stadium, that does not mean you have more passionate fans. It means you have a tiny stadium. Washington leads the Pac-12 in attendance, and you have offered no credible reason for disbelieving them, except that you are clinging to your baseless claim that their stadium is empty.
LikeLike
Marc, you seem to be in denial. UW attendance is terrible. It doesn’t matter how many free tickets they give away to no-shows. That just cooks the numbers. Did you read this article from Sports Illustrated that I linked?
https://www.si.com/college/washington/football/husky-stadium-running-on-empty-for-fans
Here’s another one:
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/college-football/pac-12-program-has-embarrassing-attendance-for-saturdays-game/
LikeLike
Speaking of terrible attendance. Last season, UCLA was in danger of losing their home-field advantage in the Rose Bowl to LSU for the season opener until they offered to give any high school student in LA County a free ticket to the game.
It was still close to 50/50.
LikeLike
Speaking of attendance, are there any Pac-12 schools playing consistently mediocre-to-bad football but having such a loyal fan base that they keep on packing the stadium anyway? Well, yes, there is one . . .
https://theboldcu.com/2021/11/fans/
https://www.si.com/college/colorado/football/colorado-attendance-strong
LikeLike
2015-2019 attendance: UW #1 in PAC just a few hundred above USC. Utah’s attendance just under 70% of UW with CO smaller still. UW 2021 attendance may have been suppressed due to its Covid testing requirements for admission. I know of no such requirement for Utah games.
LikeLike
Little8: “UW 2021 attendance may have been suppressed due to its Covid testing requirements for admission.”
The reported attendance for UW games remains high. They are obviously cooking the numbers and I can readily prove this. The official attendance reported by UW for the Arkansas State game on Sept 18 was 58,772. Here is a photo of the stadium four minutes before the 4:15 kickoff. Does this look like 58,000 people?
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/college-football/pac-12-program-has-embarrassing-attendance-for-saturdays-game/
Another eyewitness reporter for the Arkansas State game says “The Arkansas State game . . . didn’t even fill up half the seating configuration.”
https://www.si.com/college/washington/football/husky-stadium-running-on-empty-for-fans
Yet the reported attendance was over 58,000. These numbers are meaningless. I believe the news reports and numerous photographs showing poor attendance at Washington and Arizona State and good attendance at Utah and Colorado.
LikeLike
Yet the reported attendance was over 58,000. These numbers are meaningless. I believe the news reports and numerous photographs showing poor attendance at Washington and Arizona State and good attendance at Utah and Colorado.
The reported attendance is the peak figure, generally around the second quarter when all of the late-comers have arrived. It is quite common at many schools that the fans show up late for an early-season game against a lower-tier opponent, such as the Arkansas State game you cite. This happens all over the country.
LikeLike
Btw, UCLA definitely has upside potential on the fan interest front. It kills the Bruins to play an hour’s drive from campus. Once people dismiss the idea of doing that, it ultimately becomes much more likely that they don’t watch on TV either. Let UCLA play games in the Rams’ new stadium, and I bet Bruin attendance and fan interest rises. This worked wonders in MLB for the San Francisco Giants. Just moving from Candlestick Park to the downtown Pac Bell Park in 2000 rejuvenated fan interest.
LikeLike
The key thing is, the Big Ten has never really needed ND to justify expansion.
The notion that ND was needed to move to 12 or 14 or 16 has been debunked. And I think 18 and 20 are possible without ND.
But at a certain point you are done without ND yes, possibly at 20, certainly before 24.
On a more important point: the Big Ten’s strategy is to make all of its original 10 members like ND:
Here’s a key Swarbrick quote from 2020 re:conference membership: ” I still believe that the opportunity to play in New York regularly, the opportunity to play on the West Coast every year. No school has ever played in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York in the same year; we’ve now done it nine times. That’s what independence gives us, it gives us that opportunity. ”
Guess what conference’s teams will have the opportunity to play in LA, Chicago, NYC regularly starting in 2024 (and add DC for good measure).
If the Big Ten adds Washington, Miami, maybe UVA or Stanford:
Then what’s the difference between Ohio State and Michigan versus ND?
Ohio State/Michigan will play near Philly, Chicago, NYC, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, Miami, regularly.
The Big Ten will have the major programs near all those major markets, that’s the best version of any possible ND national schedule.
ND will be playing USC, Stanford regardless but rest of the schedule will be G5-level compared to a national Big Ten schedule.
Then, it’s checkmate and ND joins the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This is why I keep saying everyone should be calm about ND. No need for pressure, just take every school in every market that matters.
If the Big Ten and SEC take all the major market teams in cfb and ND is just left with USC/Stanford (Big Ten won’t cut them out) and then a G5 schedule while Ohio State/Michigan are playing USC/Stanford + Penn State, UCLA, Washington, Miami, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, etc.
What’s the benefit to being independent and playing schedule that gets very low ratings, while your 2 major Midwest competitors get a national schedule in every market that matters?
Same reason why Texas joined the SEC. No way were they going to let A&M get the SEC branding while playing Florida/Alabama/LSU/Georgia/Arkansas while they were stuck with the G5 level Big 12 teams.
LikeLike
ND will be playing USC, Stanford regardless but rest of the schedule will be G5-level compared to a national Big Ten schedule.
Their schedule is almost that already. So far, the market has not punished them for it. Among Swarbrick’s three potential reasons for joining a conference, money is the biggest wild card. They are obviously willing to accept somewhat less than the Big Ten would pay, but how much less?
LikeLike
Correct, but I think they may get punished financially for it when the ACC loses FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC among others.
That’s the point at which there’s really not enough schools to justify their schedule.
Whenever NBC has to renew their ND deal in the 2030s, that will be a major problem.
NBC will want them in the Big Ten at that point and and may make that clear financially.
LikeLike
I think it’s high time that Warren grow a pair and offer ND an ultimatum. Won’t happen but I’d love to see it.
To Jack Sawbrick:
Dear Jack,
The Big 10 would like to offer you a one time opportunity to join the BIG. We will give you 30 days to decide. If you decide to remain independent we’ll respect that but understand that the BIG will no longer consider ND a candidate for membership.
We will continue our westward expansion and when the ACC’s GOR expires we will take a combination of schools, unfortunately ND will not be one of them. If independence becomes unsustainable for ND I’m sure the SEC will welcome you with open arms. You’ll make lots of money and the SEC is a premier conference. I hear SEC Hockey is pretty good as well.
You can explain to the team, fans, alumni and donors that ND will now be playing ½ of their games below the Mason/Dixon line. Look at it this way no more long trips to the East or West Coast.
I wish you and ND all the best.
Your Friend,
Kevin Warren
LikeLike
You are right that it won’t happen. You are wrong about the reasons.
LikeLike
Why on Earth would any commissioner do something that boneheaded? Force ND into joining the competition if anyone, and then practically daring them to do it?
All independent teams are always candidates for expansion – it’s what comes with being independent.
What the B10 has done and will do is tell ND we need an answer by X if you want to join in this round. But they’ll never close the door on them permanently. Why would they? How does it harm the B10 for ND to stay independent?
Besides, as soon as the next commissioner takes over, they’d instantly reverse that position. And even that assumes the presidents would ever let Warren make that statement in the first place. I think he’d get fired within hours of the presidents first hearing about it.
LikeLike
I absolutely don’t see the need to try and “force” ND to do anything? Why try to make them pay to exit the ACC early? Focus on fully integrating USC/UCLA, figure out how to schedule without divisions, improve the quality of the lower level B1G teams, adjust to the impact of NIL money, allow the ACC and PAC to wither and see what teams are worth taking in the future. It’s fun to speculate about ND, FSU, WA, UNC, MIA, UVA, Stanford or whoever. The reality is none of them are coming today.
For my money the bigger issue for the B1G (and SEC) in the near term is how do they view the CFB playoffs and CCGs in the new P2 world? How inclusive should the playoffs be vs. how many P2 teams get in? How many games do the elite NIL 4* and 5* players want to play in per year? What is the best way to monetize the CCGs and playoffs from the B1G/SEC perspective?
That’s plenty to keep them busy regardless of what ND decides. Would they be a great brand to add to the B1G – sure. The future success (or struggles) the B1G faces are going to happen with or without the Irish.
LikeLike
Bob – under the previous plan vetoed by the Alliance of B1G, Pac & ACC, the CCGs would have meant a lot as the top four conference champions would have received a bye.
Hopefully, that plan or something substantially similar gets adopted. The B1G shouldn’t have any issues, and the Pac & ACC need the money. Oh, and its also the best plan that addresses most everyone’s concerns.
LikeLike
Bob: “For my money the bigger issue for the B1G (and SEC) in the near term is how do they view the CFB playoffs and CCGs in the new P2 world?”
Yep, spot on. ND ain’t joining a conference anytime soon and those post-season games are becoming huge.
LikeLike
Colin – The SEC will certainly do their part by insisting that the Irish always have access to the playoff, if for no other reason than to prevent the Irish from having to join the B1G.
LikeLike
Alan: “Colin – The SEC will certainly do their part by insisting that the Irish always have access to the playoff, if for no other reason than to prevent the Irish from having to join the B1G.”
Of course they will.
LikeLike
Bob
‘Focus on fully integrating USC/UCLA, figure out how to schedule without divisions, improve the quality of the lower level B1G teams, adjust to the impact of NIL money, allow the ACC and PAC to wither and see what teams are worth taking in the future.’
Totally agree with you. Additional problems or issues are the new transfer rules, and when and what will be the resolution of ‘Johnson vs NCAA’. This can’t be a great time to be a Division 1-A conference AD, ………..except for the money.
I have a totally separate issue I haven’t seen discussed anywhere recently and would appreciate thoughts from the lawyers, especially labor lawyers. Will there be a challenge to the NFL/NFLPAs restraint of trade with regard to the 3 years out of high school draft eligibility requirement. Micah Parsons sat out his 3rd year, and I could see prospective first rounders doing this more often.
LikeLike
The SEC will certainly do their part by insisting that the Irish always have access to the playoff, if for no other reason than to prevent the Irish from having to join the B1G.
And not just the SEC. There are 11 members of the CFP board of managers, representing the ten FBS conferences plus ND. No one wants to limit ND’s postseason access, since they all know it would push the Irish into a conference. Even if you think the Big Ten would want that, they are not going to propose anything that offends ND when they know it cannot pass anyway.
LikeLike
largeR,
“I have a totally separate issue I haven’t seen discussed anywhere recently and would appreciate thoughts from the lawyers, especially labor lawyers. Will there be a challenge to the NFL/NFLPAs restraint of trade with regard to the 3 years out of high school draft eligibility requirement. Micah Parsons sat out his 3rd year, and I could see prospective first rounders doing this more often.”
Maurice Clarett challenged it and won in circuit court, but lost on appeal because labor laws trump antitrust law. That precedent is out there, making it harder for anyone else. You might need the Supremes to override the precedent.
Clarett argues that the NFL clubs are horizontal competitors for the labor of professional football players and thus may not agree that a player will be hired only after three full football seasons have elapsed following that player’s high school graduation. That characterization, however, neglects that the labor market for NFL players is organized around a collective bargaining relationship that is provided for and promoted by federal labor law, and that the NFL clubs, as a multi-employer bargaining unit, can act jointly in setting the terms and conditions of players’ employment and the rules of the sport without risking antitrust liability. For those reasons, the NFL argues that federal labor law favoring and governing the collective bargaining process precludes the application of the antitrust laws to its eligibility rules. We agree.
LikeLike
Brian
“Maurice Clarett challenged it and won in circuit court, but lost on appeal because labor laws trump antitrust law. That precedent is out there, making it harder for anyone else. You might need the Supremes to override the precedent.”
Thanks. I forgot about Clarett.
LikeLike
Over the years, I have seen dozens of proposals along the lines of, “Tell Notre Dame to f___ off.” It’s only opposing fans who hate the Irish who say such things. University presidents and ADs have no such animosity towards ND. It is quite the opposite.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC cares what ND does. They would probably gladly invite them, but the SEC doesn’t dwell on what other conferences are doing.
LikeLike
…the SEC doesn’t dwell on what other conferences are doing.
Of course they do. You think they were not bug-eyed at the Big Ten’s latest TV deals? Naturally they are. The lack of a public comment does not mean they are indifferent.
LikeLike
Even more silly about it is that Notre Dame is an actual associate member of the conference. So I think telling them to “F@#$ off” would make that next ice hockey meeting just a little awkward.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Is Notre Dame becoming increasingly less important to the B1G?”
I’d say less valuable (they were never important), but to answer the question: Yes.
But it doesn’t matter. ND is the B10’s school-crush. The B10 will always want to add them and will always make room for them.
“I can understand subsidizing Stanford, due to their Olympic sports, academic excellence, money, and tolerable football. Washington might not really need to be subsidized much at all.”
The media expert says it’s the other way around – Stanford is worth a lot more to ta TV deal than UW (SF trumps Seattle).
“Cal is a problem. How much does Cal bring to the B1G, other than academic prestige, which is not the key to anything?”
It would keep UCLA/Cal as a conference game, making UCLA a bit happier. Cal also brings tons of Olympic sports success. Other than that, not much.
“Finally Oregon. If Phil Knight gave Oregon sports $500 million to be utilized at the rate of $25 per year for 20 years (ignoring earnings on the funds), that would be the subsidy to OR, which could take $25 million per year less from the B1G.”
Reporters say he has planned for a big donation upon his death.
“Of course that is not going to happen and does not solve academic concerns.”
We don’t actually know if there are academic concerns. UO is low in key AAU metrics because it doesn’t house the medical school or the engineering school for OR. But that’s been true for a long time, and the presidents know it. UO is either considered good enough or it isn’t, but none of us know.
“So if the B1G takes Washington and Stanford, that is 18 teams. Let us say that in 2028, ND finally is ready and brings $200 million to the B1G, which would then be 19 teams. B1G teams at that point would be north of $90 million each and perhaps closer to $100 million.
ND would then be bringing about $100M extra to the league, which is about $5 million and change to the other 18 teams. At that point ND is not making an important financial contribution.”
My guess is that ND adds a lot more value than that, just not through the typical method of a footprint extension/market addition. ND adds a national brand in a way nobody else does. It will increase viewership in every major market. It adds a bunch of high-value games to the inventory, making every TV package worth a lot more. It adds BTN subscribers everywhere.
“Yes, ND is a king and is an extremely hot pick, but how long does ND get to play coy, before the B1G just says that if ND wants to join call us, because we are not chasing you any more?”
All the B10 does now is check in with them every few years when the opportunity seems ripe (looking for #12, looking to go to 14, starting a huge new TV deal and expanding to at least 16). They haven’t added someone just for ND, or not added someone in consideration of ND. ND is a 5-star recruit. You stay in contact until a decision is made. And until ND joins another conference, they are available and will be recruited.
LikeLike
There’s a misconception about ND. The Big Ten will never issue any sort of ultimatum to ND. As Brian said, that would be a fireable offense for a Big Ten commissioner to even act like that let alone Warren who graduated from ND law. The Big Ten likely checks on ND regularly to make sure they’re okay and to let the Big Ten know if they need anything.
The misunderstanding here is that the Big Ten is not expanding for ND or really with any consideration for ND.
The reality is that the exact places that ND wants to play are the exact places where the Big Ten wants to go.
Ohio State/Michigan as the basic example are very similar to ND in their wants and needs. Not exactly the same, but similar.
That quote from Swarbrick in 2020 says it all: “I still believe that the opportunity to play in New York regularly, the opportunity to play on the West Coast every year. No school has ever played in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York in the same year; we’ve now done it nine times. That’s what independence gives us, it gives us that opportunity. ”
The original 10 Big Ten teams want the same thing as ND, to play in the big markets around the country. It’s more a natural coincidence that the Big Ten is building a conference that will one day suit ND… because that’s the exact conference that Ohio State and Michigan want to have.
One where they play schools in Chicago, NYC, LA as well as near Philly, DC, and maybe even SF or Seattle or Miami or where-ever.
It’s not a shock that Ohio State/Michigan want to play the LA schools or Rutgers or Maryland. They may eventually want to play a Florida school or a Seattle school or a SF school or whoever.
So the Big Ten can just focus on building a national conference that touches every major region of the country without worrying about ND going anywhere else.
ND’s needs are similar to the Big Ten’s original 10+Nebraska, they have similar demographic needs. Sure they’re a bit different because they might want to play a bit more in the Northeast, but everyone needs access to the coasts.
LikeLike
There is the fear (I have heard expressed) by some Domers that if they joined the B10, they would be seen as no different from Michigan or OSU. Never mind that ND’s specialness already increasingly resides only in the head of the Domers. Talk to recruits and they don’t think OSU is any less national than ND these days (and the Bucks compete for national titles more often). Talk to non-ND fans outside the Midwest and they don’t consider ND to be much different from Michigan already.
LikeLike
Yeah, Michigan/Ohio State and ND are tied together as the 3 Midwest football kings, despite being 3 very different universities.
Before 2010, it was fair to note that Michigan/Ohio State were really 2 kings of a regionalized Midwest grouping, and even the Penn State addition hadn’t really changed that dramatically.
But everything’s changed since then and the way recruiting of athletes and even just normal students has become much more national as all the Big Ten universities try to get ever more students from outside of their traditional areas (and especially from the areas like Chicago/New Jersey that export students).
Ohio State has become arguably the most national brand in the sport other than ND given the way they recruit blue chips outside of the conference footprint.
And conference realignment has just followed along with that. You get to a point where Ohio State and Michigan are another 2 kings in a nationalized Big Ten, which definitely seems like the route this is all going as we all expect more schools on the coasts to join.
So yeah the differences in the football brands of ND versus Ohio State/Michigan has basically disappeared to a large extent. It’s not all clear what the “independence” will mean as far as ND goes if Ohio State/Michigan are kings in a national grouping with effectively all the scheduling benefits of independent in a conference.
LikeLike
Zeek, that is a very logical argument and I completely agree with you.
The problem is that to many Domers, “independence” is more like a religion that they’ll cling bitterly to even when “independence” is more an illusion than anything.
Sort of like the “never pay players” crowd. Elite football players now are choosing to play football at certain programs instead of other programs because they’ll make more millions here than there through NIL, but a certain (albeit aging) part of the CFB fanbase still wants to cling to the illusion that these are scholar-athletes who chose to become a student at their alma mater because of the positive characteristics of their alma mater.
LikeLike
It’s funny how the conventional wisdom of this blog’s comment section is in stark contrast to the near-universal media/pundit consensus that Oregon is the most valuable of the remaining PAC schools. I realize some of you think they’re all idiots who don’t share your secret-knowledge of the B1Gwigs’ expansion chessboard, but I think they’re right. I also think the Big Ten Presidents have likely reconciled themselves to the fact they need football brands (the engine) to offset the academic additions they desire. This would apply to FSU and Miami, but also Oregon, which is, after all, AAU. Point being, if all you ‘Washington-only’ guys grab a shovel, you should be able to finish digging an adequate size memory hole by the time Oregon receives its invitation.
LikeLike
Certainly possible, but that’s just because most of us suspect that Oregon is a pretty poor fit outside of its current princely football status.
Without that, what is Oregon? A university of relatively small enrollment despite the football success and which isn’t located near any major market and is somehow smaller than Oregon State University despite not possessing some kind of exclusiveness/public Ivy type of aspect which would justify a lower enrollment.
And the AAU issue is in question with Oregon, which all of the Big Ten presidents should be privy to (except Nebraska I guess).
Oregon is probably the lowest ranked AAU at the moment according to the AAU metrics given that Nebraska, Syracuse, Iowa State are all out now. By any prestige metric, Oregon’s far below Nebraska and many of the other non-AAU contenders here like FSU, Miami, Va Tech, ASU.
And you have universities like Arizona State which has dramatically ramped up its graduate school metrics (research is up 200% since the 00s from mid-200 million range to over 600 million).
At a certain point, Oregon is likely to get kicked out of the AAU as its former president Berdahl (who was once head of the AAU himself as Oregon’s president) was worried.
Pretty much whenever there’s universities that get up to the 30-40 range by AAU metrics (i.e. near the 50%-ile of AAUs), then the laggards in the 90-100 range (well below the 25%-ile) get warned, since the group likes to stay in the mid-60s.
I could be wrong about all this as could the rest of our group here. But the blunt reality is, Oregon is an absolute albatross if it’s not good at football. That’s not a safe school to have.
If Washington is bad at football, it’s still Washington, one of the largest/most prominent research universities in the country located near Seattle with a gigantic enrollment.
If Oregon is bad at football, it literally has nothing going for it. Not enrollment, prestige, research expenditures, location. Literally nothing.
LikeLike
Meh. I think this board was strongly touting that the next potential addition for the Big Ten was USC – as the only plausible school that made sense since Notre Dame wasn’t likely willing – as a response to the SEC getting UT/OU. Meanwhile most “pundits” would put out guesses of trying to get Kansas or Oklahoma State. And it’s not really that crazy to be at least questing of Oregon’s long term prospects especially if the main reason for inviting them is an expectation of them being high quality in football.
LikeLike
We shall see.
Yale has 18 national titles, Princeton 15, Harvard 8, and Penn 4. Georgia Tech was a football power at one time. Pitt too. So was Minnesota.
Nebraska is the best comp to Oregon – rose to prominence in the 1960s, stayed on top for 3 decades, but is now a shadow of its former self for obvious reasons. I expect the Big Ten Presidents will look at Oregon, then look down the table to Nebraska and politely vote “No”.
LikeLike
@Endeavor: This blog’s origin was FTT’s insight to “think like a university president, not like a fan.” While not perfect, Frank repeatedly got the big expansion calls right when many of the media pundits — who were thinking like fans — got them wrong. Of course, the comments section attracted a lot of people who were attuned to Frank’s way of thinking.
This is not to say Oregon couldn’t’ get in — I am less sure about that than some people here — but the logic arguing against them is compelling.
LikeLike
I will give some props to the convention wisdom on this blog.
You could find theories about all sorts of additions, but generally when expansion comes into focus, Frank has generally had us thinking in the right direction.
Nobody gets every call right of course, and we could be wrong about Oregon, but go back to the older threads.
Rutgers always made sense around here in some kind of move to 14 and Frank largely steered the conversation to that point.
Both Nebraska and Rutgers, Frank largely keyed us onto the value of those two schools with the way he argued to think like a university president.
When vp19 (under his old name) came around talking about Maryland, it sort of seeded the Maryland talk around here 1-2 years before anybody was talking about Maryland outside of here, even in the national media. I know Frank was cautious on the ACC being raided, but a lot of us were all over Maryland because it was such a perfect choice: giant enrollment, prestigious research institution, right there next to DC.
I know I personally started saying “why not Maryland and JHU to start a lacrosse conference”… way before JHU was even a possibility as a lacrosse affiliate. It just made too sense given the prestige of JHU as a research institution with a D1 lacrosse program in the same state as Maryland and with that tight relationship with the Terps, and that might’ve been the best call I’ve made in these blog comments.
And USC/UCLA, all of us honed in on that last year in August. The contract timings of the Big Ten/Pac-12 lined up perfectly, but most of us thought (wrongly) that USC/UCLA would need 2-4 other members to leave with them.
So that’s one incident where the common wisdom here was only sort of right.
But just look at the last 4 additions: Maryland/Rutgers/USC/UCLA: all giant enrollment, prestigious research institutions located near major markets.
Hard to square Oregon with that unless Oregon is an absolute “can’t miss” football power.
LikeLike
I’m sort of in the middle regarding Oregon.
I think the national media is generally overrating how the Big Ten would value Oregon as an expansion candidate while underrating how the league would value Stanford and Cal. As some others here, my concern would be that they’re a relative newcomer in terms of football value. If we were discussing any then-Pac-10 schools that the Big Ten would have wanted when I first started writing about conference realignment back in 2009, I don’t think Oregon would have been in consideration.
However, to paraphrase Bill Simmons, we might be so concerned that Oregon is overrated that we’re starting to underrate them. While it’s true that multiple coaches have left Oregon over the past decade, that also means that they’ve been able to have success under multiple coaches. Nike is the most powerful force in college athletics (and maybe *all* of athletics) and that’s not changing for the foreseeable future, so that connection between Oregon and Nike is particularly valuable and not going away. The State of Oregon isn’t a large market, but it’s also not a small market, either – it’s growing at a very fast rate with a very highly educated and affluent population (without as many retirees seeking a lower cost of living like Arizona) and Portland is a legitimate and growing TV market. Their demographics are right in line with the San Francisco Bay Area and Seattle.
On the academics side, I don’t think Oregon is in danger of losing AAU membership. Always remember that there’s a small “p” political element to its membership where they do want some institutional diversity in terms of profiles and locations. So, they’re going to take into account schools like Oregon that aren’t buoyed by massive STEM programs (see Indiana and Iowa as corollaries in the Big Ten) and, further to the point about Oregon’s market, it has a location in a very fast growing state with a highly educated population in a large region (the Pacific Northwest) that doesn’t have any other AAU members besides Washington. That’s different than Nebraska or how Iowa State and Syracuse pulled out of the AAU – all of those schools are in the Midwest and Northeast regions that are saturated with AAU members. Ultimately, one of the most important functions of the AAU is to be a lobbying organization in Washington, DC, so we shouldn’t be naïve to think that the AAU is looking solely at pure academic metrics and where Oregon is located with their population base doesn’t protect them more compared to if they swapped locations with Nebraska or Iowa State.
In any event, I don’t believe that the Big Ten would take Oregon over Washington, Cal or Stanford. In that sense, Oregon is being overrated by the media. However, I also believe that there’s little chance that the Big Ten would *exclude* Oregon in an expansion that includes Washington, Cal and Stanford. Assuming Notre Dame maintains independence, I’m still of the mind that Cal and Stanford would be the schools that the Big Ten would add to go up to 18 (yes, I know all of the arguments about their respective fan bases, but these really are the crème de la crème of university president choices) and they’d further take Washington and Oregon to go up to 20. I don’t believe that the Big Ten would take Washington and Oregon alone to go up to 18.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah those are good points about Cal and Oregon.
I tend to agree that a 4 school package is more likely than a 2 school package based on what we know though maybe the Big Ten just goes for singular Pac-12 schools with other additions like ND or ACC schools.
Cal and Stanford might be as tied together as USC and UCLA as institutions. It’s interesting to see whether they’d split.
As far as Oregon goes, the Nike tie is the most interesting and sustainable factor in their favor for staying relevant.
I also think you deserve huge credit for the talks about the possibility of FSU and Miami.
You had posts about FSU (and Miami) to the Big Ten when nobody was thinking about that and now most of us think those are the top 2 schools available other than ND.
That is almost becoming conventional wisdom 10 years later.
LikeLike
@z33k – Yes, I’ve long been a large believer in the outsized importance of the State of Florida for both college football and as a place where Big Ten alums are moving *to* (even if they’re not *from* there).
Prior to June 30th, if we were to say that the Big Ten could “break” the ACC, I would have said that schools like UVA and Georgia Tech would have been automatic additions to the Big Ten if they were available. Now, though, I’m failing to see why the Big Ten would materially prefer those schools over Stanford, Cal, Washington and/or Oregon (or really any Pac-12 school outside of Washington State or Oregon State). UVA and GT seem to fit into the “great academic school in a good market” category, but I don’t think that profile matters to the Big Ten as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting on the sidelines with even better academics in a better market. (I really feel like Stanford and Cal are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine here. Speaking as someone that has often viewed expansion candidates through the lens of combining academics and markets over the years, we really have to adjust our thinking when those two schools are legitimately the two best academic schools from a graduate research perspective in the best market available to the Big Ten and they haven’t been invited yet.)
In contrast, though, FSU and Miami are national name brands (even if they’re currently down by historical standards) in what has generally been the best pound-for-pound college football recruiting state in the country. The State of Florida has also long been a center for Big Ten alums. FSU and Miami aren’t the clear unambiguous academic fits that USC and UCLA were, but they’re also not some types of dregs, either. (While the Big Ten university presidents have generally been much more focused on grad school rankings, note that FSU and Miami would be right in the middle-to-upper middle ranks of the Big Ten for undergrad rankings.)
To be sure, FSU in particular probably prefers the SEC and, even though the SEC already has UF, that league almost certainly wants nothing to do with the Big Ten having the FSU/Miami combo. From my vantage point, there are three particularly important markets in college football in terms of combining size and recruiting grounds: Southern California, Texas and Florida. The Big Ten owns the 2 biggest brands in Southern California, the SEC owns the 2 biggest brands in Texas, and the SEC has the biggest brand in Florida. Long-term, I don’t think it would be good for the Big Ten if the SEC further brings in either FSU or Miami to really lock down that state completely. FSU and Miami *should* be looked at differently by the Big Ten (if academics really concern them) because of the importance of their locations on top of their respective brands.
LikeLike
Cal and Stanford might be as tied together as USC and UCLA as institutions. It’s interesting to see whether they’d split.
I cannot imagine Cal+Stanford as #17 & 18, and stopping there. The Big Ten presidents love them as research institutions, but the Big Ten is a sports conference, not a seminar. You expand to make money, and yet those two (without more) are surely dilutive.
Most of us think Notre Dame is not joining in this round, but supposing they do, I think any Pac school would happily accept the offer to be #18, regardless of the rivals they leave behind. Likewise, I cannot see Stanford refusing to join with Washington, if they get the chance. I’m not an expert on the Cal–Stanford rivalry, but it has always seemed to me pretty far down the pecking order, simply because Cal football was rarely good enough to matter.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s about rivalries as much as institutional ties.
Despite Cal and UCLA sharing the board of UC Regents above them as part of the UC system, it wouldn’t surprise me if the leadership of each thought of their nearby private (USC/Stanford) as the closer and more important athletics partner.
But I do think you’re right Marc.
If the Big Ten invited Stanford only, I can only imagine the anger from Stanford alumni if that got turned down.
And value wise: Washington + Stanford has got to be a much more valuable combination for TV money than Cal+Stanford.
I’m ambivalent about adding 4 more out West, I think it’s too dilutive and I don’t see a way to fix that without ND replacing one of those 4. If ND is coming, then sure go to 20 now.
The Big Ten is constrained now to needing schools that bring serious football value in terms of TV ratings/viewership because of how big the contracts are and how much the T1-2 portion is compared to 12 years ago.
I still think just waiting and seeing how the East shakes out is the best bet.
If the Big Ten gets an odd number east, add Washington to even it up.
Stanford can always get the final invite with ND.
LikeLike
Frank – I wholeheartedly agree. Oregon is a national brand thanks to winning, the Nike highlighter-colored uniforms, and Lee Corso’s love for the Duck. While the state is smaller, it experienced double digit growth over the last decade and picked up a congressional district.
People say the Ducks are in a terrible market looking at Eugene only, but its a little over 100 miles away from #25 MSA Portland. Penn State is 193 miles away from #7 MSA Philly and 138 miles away from #27 MSA Pittsburgh. Other bigtime schools are a decent distance from their closest top 50 MSA like Alabama (#50 Birmingham), Georgia (#8 ATL) & Florida (#39 JAX).
And Eugene is the location for the filming of the greatest college movie of all-time – Animal House. The B1G has to assign bonus points for that!
LikeLike
I think it’s dubious if Oregon actually got invited, but at some point the product on the field needs to matter as well.
Not saying all of the other stuff shouldn’t be considered, but if the B10 only invited Cal/Stanford and left Oregon/Washington to the B12 (in the event the P12 folded) I would be very surprised. Again, Oregon isn’t Boise State, and they’re one of the few teams in the CFP era to actually make the title game.
As long as the B10 has some idea/assurances as to their financial situation post-Knight, and maybe some idea of how they plan to up their academics, then I think they’d made sense as a combo with another team. I still don’t see the B10 taking six total Pac12 teams though.
LikeLike
I can say with certainty that Stanford does not consider USC to be a close partner in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were nemeses in conference meetings.
Cal is by far Stanford’s most important institutional partner and sports rival – the former’s poor football performance notwithstanding. A Stanford coach that never loses to Cal has high job security. The games for which Stanford coaches are held most accountable are Cal, USC, UCLA, and ND – in that order. Beating the LA schools has always been important for recruiting.
But, I have no opinion on how obligated to Cal that Stanford feels. I do know that Cal’s refusal to play the Big Game on Thanksgiving weekend since the Stanford-ND relationship started has been a sore point with the Cardinal.
LikeLike
Frank,
GT might quibble about which market is better and by how much. Atlanta has more fervent CFB fans, and GA is better for recruiting than NoCal. UGA dominates the market, but GT is reasonably popular there. How much do the local stations discuss Cal and Stanford during the week? And GT’s academics are pretty good, too.
That said, GT would need to fit into a bigger strategy with other southeastern ACC schools (just like the SF schools). For example, GT and Miami would add two huge markets vs doubling down on SF. I’m not advocating for GT, just saying it could make sense if you believe that the B10 wants into FL, and that FSU will choose the SEC over the B10.
LikeLike
I just don’t see a way to pay for a Big20 without ND or any of the FL schools.
I see 18 being possible with an After Dark package (that included CT teams hosting).
And I do believe Stanford and Cal are potential #17 and #18 if the B10 can make the financial math work because they hit all the checkmarks in everything outside of football (and it’s not like Stanford is laggard in football; they actually draw decent TV rating because they’ve been pretty good due to winning almost all the recruits who care about academics and lots of money and because they play ND every other year at home).
LikeLike
I see 18 being possible with an After Dark package (that included CT teams hosting).
The other way it might work is to sell the incremental games to a streamer like Amazon or Apple that would overpay to get their foot in the door. Absent that, I agree with you that After Dark is really the only lever left to pull, but I am not yet seeing enough value there.
LikeLike
Thanks for the compliment on my foresight regarding Maryland, z33k. College Park was dissatisfied with ACC leadership circa 2010 (especially from the Research Triangle mafia of UNC, NCSU and Duke, with UVa as a minion); to be fair, UMd’s athletic department and AD Kay Yow didn’t help matters by expanding the football stadium, hoping ACC expansion would help pay for it. Yow made some great coaching hires (Ralph Friedgen, football; Sasho Civorski, men’s soccer; Brenda Frese, women’s basketball), but the ACC’s weak football brand never translated into filled seats. She had left UMd for N.C. State before the B1G move, though she was quoted as being skeptical about playing basketball games at Wisconsin. In retrospect, however, Maryland has been one of the big winners in conference realignment.
LikeLike
Yeah, MD got out early as the money differences started to be magnified.
Arguably one of the most prescient moves at a time when they were leaving a conference seen as a bastion of stability. As one of the teams controlling their destiny hard not to see it as one of the wisest moves of any cycle.
And they have a solid shot at getting back UVA as a partner as well in the future.
The Swofford self-dealing was the other aspect that’s held down the ACC payouts and the final result of which (the undermarket ACCN deal through 2036) will finally doom them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Swofford self-dealing was the other aspect that’s held down the ACC payouts and the final result of which (the undermarket ACCN deal through 2036) will finally doom them.
I think their mediocre football product would have doomed them anyway. Even if they were paid at market, they would still be under-earning the Big Ten and the SEC. Inevitably, their more valuable schools would leave. Obviously, their severely under-market deal makes it worse.
I can understand that UNC and UVA might be willing to accept a little less money if it means they can keep rivalries they have had for decades. They already made that trade-off once, although they perhaps didn’t realize how bad a deal they were getting. FSU has no such attachment: it would happily play an SEC schedule if it could get in. (Bobby Bowden’s decision to reject an SEC invite ranks pretty high on the list of all-time conference realignment blunders.)
LikeLike
Well, long-term blunder from FSU’s perspective. Short-term, from BB’s perspective, not a blunder because BB definitely won more games and conference titles (and possibly more national championships) in the ACC than he would have in the SEC.
LikeLike
EndeavorWMEdani,
near-universal media/pundit consensus that Oregon is the most valuable of the remaining PAC schools
The one expert who was willing to put numerical valuations on schools said the SF schools were much more valuable the the PNW pair ($90M vs $60M). He’s negotiated dozens of these deals, so we tend to defer to his expertise.
Phil Knight has been trying to drum up better prospects for UO’s future. It’s not hard to imagine him getting some pundits to tout UO.
Plenty of pundits are just touting the TV ratings analyses they’ve seen. That’s a factor, but not necessarily the primary factor, in total valuations.
LikeLike
Oregon probably will bring the best TV ratings the first few years. But like Boise, they are dependent on football success. And they have smaller markets than UW, Cal and Stanford. They’re not likely to make a 2 team expansion.
LikeLike
bullet: “And they (Oregon) have smaller markets than UW, Cal and Stanford.”
They have smaller markets than UW, Cal, Stanford, Utah and Colorado.
LikeLike
Oregon has had 4 coaches since 2015, 5 in the last decade. 3 of the 4 departees left of their own volition. That should be the biggest tell of all with respect to how coaches view Oregon football in the bigger scheme of things.
LikeLike
Finally, if Nike was my sponsor, I would tout Oregon too. . . .Good night.
LikeLike
Finally, if Nike was my sponsor, I would be touting Oregon too. . . .Good night.
LikeLike
I am not sure why there is any good reason to accept the “fact” that there will be further western expansion of the B1G. There are rumors that USC and perhaps UCLA did not want more western schools, in order to limit recruiting incursions from the north.
The B1G may choose to add schools, but is very far from certain.
To the best of my knowledge, there have not been rumors or statements to the effect that USC/UCLA want more western schools. The common wisdom is that the B1G must do something to give them a western wing and travel partners. What if they do not want travel partners? What if USC/UCLA are very happy being the only western teams in the P2? The SEC is not very likely to be looking for a team or two on the Pacific.
As has been mentioned here often, adding schools to ameliorate LA schools travel issues, adds more travel issue for the current 14.
I still say that at the time of signing with the B1G there likely was some sort of agreement re additional western schools. Either the B1G agreed to not take any or the league agreed with the LA schools when the move would start.
I have yet to see an argument why the B1G needs to add western schools other than as travel partners. There is talk about the late night scheduling, but that is only to pay for the new western schools. It does not appear to be a basic goal of the B1G. If it were a goal, more schools would have been added already.
Someone claimed here that this is analogous to the inability of TAMU to stop the SEC from taking UT. That is not at all the same. TAMU was a member of the SEC. Their choice was to accept UT or withdraw from the SEC.
Here USC/UCLA were negotiating terms of entry. By asking for no more western schools (with a likely ND-Stanford exception), all the two would be doing is asking the B1G to not do something that it did not want to do in any event. The B1G certainly never seemed to be actively looking to add more schools our west, other than the two in LA.
LikeLike
I don’t think anything is certain at this point other than the Big Ten and SEC are likely to expand further over the next 2 decades.
There are plenty of ACC schools that intrigue the leadership of the 2 conferences.
As far as the Pac-12 goes, there may ultimately be more schools that the Big Ten takes or wants to take at some point, but it also may be an issue that there’s not that many “perfect” choices that check off all boxes: strong football brand with local/state-wide support, large enrollment, academic prestige/research expenditures, location.
As I’ve said repeatedly, if there were 2 Washington’s out there, I think those 2 would already be coming.
If Arizona State’s football program had the success/brand of Oregon football, then Washington/ASU would be a lock.
Same is true of possibly Cal or Colorado.
There just isn’t that many great choices out West.
Yes, there are 4 more interesting markets out West: San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver.
Cal/Stanford, Washington, ASU/Arizona, Colorado cover those markets/regions.
Oregon is a wild card due to their Nike affiliation and football brand.
But only Washington in my opinion checks every box.
Stanford comes closest as a #2 with a great location, solid football brand with good recruiting of the blue chips recruits that want the most prestigious degree, academic prestige. But small enrollment and doesn’t have the sustainable fan support as a result.
Cal is like the opposite of Stanford: larger enrollment/better fan support if good, but they’ve literally never been seen as a good football brand. Just 3 of their seasons have had 10 wins since their last major bowl, the 1958 Rose Bowl.
ASU is just sort of coming on in the last 20 years as their enrollment has grown and they’ve become a big research institution. Football brand is a bit better than Cal with a more recent Rose Bowl in the 90s and a generally better record on average over the last 30 years with more bowls. But that isn’t really saying much. And they share the state with Arizona. Enrollment gives them potential as far as fan support goes.
Oregon has the football at the moment but not else. Bad location, smaller state, very low enrollment for a flagship, very low research spending due to lack of med/eng.
Same stories elsewhere with Colorado/Utah/Arizona, both missing something whether market size or fan support or not enough football brand or location.
LikeLike
I have yet to see an argument why the B1G needs to add western schools other than as travel partners.
When you see the phrase “travel partner” in an expansion proposal, it is a near-certain sign the expansion is not happening — or at least, not because of that.
I still say that at the time of signing with the B1G there likely was some sort of agreement re additional western schools. Either the B1G agreed to not take any or the league agreed with the LA schools when the move would start.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe there was any such agreement, aside from unsourced rumors so vague that they warrant very little credit. Most unsourced realignment stories are wrong.
The Big Ten might not take additional Western teams because it simply doesn’t want them right now. It surely would never have promised categorically not to take them, and USC/UCLA were in no position to make such a demand a condition of their application.
LikeLike
Totally disagree. There is every reason for the B1G to discuss and perhaps negotiate the future of other west coast schools with the LA teams.
If I were USC, I would demand that conversation before I signed. If not USC would be in a TAMU situation where it would be too late to object. Why would the B1G not negotiate a delay if the league was not about to take more west coast schools anyway? The B1G wanted LA to Chicago to NY, and they got it. Seattle or SF are clearly secondary.
Obviously we have no idea whether such conversations took place and I agree that the B1G did not agree to never take another west coast team, but if one or more of those teams were wanted now, they could have already signed on.
Maybe the B1G told the LA schools that the league is not in a hurry to add more west coast teams and the LA schools said that they were not worried about travel partners. We do not know, but it makes sense.
The B1G could very easily put the west coast on the back burner until the ND or ACC situations resolve themselves. Could the Big 12 swoop in and take UWash and Oregon? Sure, but is that a chance that the B1G will take? Probably.
If the Big 12 came and took the 4 corner schools and killed the ACC, that might change the timing of things, as Washington and Oregon would be desperate. Stanford might go independent until an offer comes along.
While I doubt that the B1G cares much, but now there is also a political reason to not take Washington or Stanford immediately. The loss of one more brand may end the PAC and exacerbate the situation with UCLA and the Board of Regents. Is this important to the B1G? I doubt it but it is not impossible.
LikeLike
Although you said you “totally disagree,” most of your points are pretty much the same as mine. What you’ve got is a bunch of “maybe,” “no idea,” “could,” “probably,” and so on. All excellent proxies for what I said, which is that we simply do not know.
If I were USC, I would demand that conversation before I signed.
This presupposes (without evidence) that the issue was high on their list of demands. As you said, the Big Ten could have volunteered that it had no further immediate plans to expand westward, and USC said, “fine with us.” That is quite different from an agreement not to expand.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA were focused on themselves as invites.
Other than Wilner (likely Cal sources) and Canzano (likely Oregon State sources) who else is saying that USC/UCLA don’t want Oregon and whoever else.
It just doesn’t make sense.
A&M didn’t want Texas, how’d that go?
USC and UCLA likely have no say in expansion matters until they actually join.
And if it makes more money, they’d likely be in favor of expansion.
Only USC/UCLA were certain to increase the size of the slices of the pie.
Not clear about anyone else out West.
LikeLike
A&M and Texas is totally irrelevant and may in fact prove the point.
If USC/UCLA had any concerns the Texas-SEC deal brought those to the forefront. Waiting until after joining the B1G could render the viewpoint of the two LA schools irrelevant, as it was with TAMU.
The time to act was before joining a new conference. Did they? Maybe the LA schools did not care. No way to know, but it makes much more sense for USC/UCLA to act before rather than later. And they were in an excellent position to make requests or demands.
The B1G wanted and needed LA for the TV contracts. If the LA schools said no more west coast schools for five years, the B1G would need to listen. The B1G might argue about it, but again we have no clue other than the fact that no other schools were invited.
No Marc, my points are not the same as your. I am admitting that none of us know anything (at least I don’t). What I am saying is that USC/UCLA had their greatest leverage before signing. We do not know their priorities, but logically the concerns of the LA schools had to be considered before signing.
If that was not clear before, Texas to the SEC made it clear that waiting until after signing with the B1G might not be the best plan.
Of course, on the other hand, the B1G, ACC, or SEC would have taken TX and OU in a second, notwithstanding some objections. The PAC is a little weird, so who knows.
LikeLike
Not quite the same. Would any conference say it would never invite a King (TX) to get a prince (A&M). It took several weeks after the A&M invite before Missouri received the second invite. Was the SEC hoping the A&M move would force Texas to make a move?
LikeLike
If USC/UCLA had any concerns the Texas-SEC deal brought those to the forefront. Waiting until after joining the B1G could render the viewpoint of the two LA schools irrelevant, as it was with TAMU.
The word “if” is doing a lot of work there. Yes, if this was something USC felt that strongly about, the time to raise it was before they joined. I am not sure how much leverage they had, but obviously once they joined then it went to zero. But there is no evidence that they raised this issue — aside from a couple of unsourced rumors that lack crucial context.
LikeLike
There is probably something to be said for not being the first conference to kill off another major conference. My guess is the B1G doesn’t want to be the one that ends the PAC. They may not care and they may not want any more west coast schools. But if they care even a little it wouldn’t be bad for the 4 corner schools to leave for the B12 first, allowing the B1G to add a few other PAC schools a “lifeline”. So far the expansion/realignment process has been all “promotion” and no “relegation” to use soccer terms. A few schools move to a better league, the other league pulls a few up from a lesser league to round out the numbers, and so and so forth. At some point that cycle ends and somebody gets left out (e.g., Oregon State, Wake Forest, etc.).
LikeLike
Bob: “There is probably something to be said for not being the first conference to kill off another major conference.”
Then it’s probably a good thing the B10 isn’t the ACC circa 2003.
Though I do agree that killing the Pac12 would probably be a worse look than when the ACC effectively shivved the Big East.
LikeLike
There is probably something to be said for not being the first conference to kill off another major conference.
This assumes we don’t count killing off the SWC or the original Big East.
My guess is the B1G doesn’t want to be the one that ends the PAC. They may not care and they may not want any more west coast schools. But if they care even a little it wouldn’t be bad for the 4 corner schools to leave for the B12 first, allowing the B1G to add a few other PAC schools a “lifeline”.
So far, no conference has held back on an expansion it truly wanted, out of sympathy for those left behind. This could be the first, but that would not be my guess. If the B1G actually wants more Pacific schools, there is no assurance that the 4 corners will make it easy by leaving first.
So far the expansion/realignment process has been all “promotion” and no “relegation” to use soccer terms.
Again, this assumes we do not count the SWC, the Big East, or what happened to Temple.
LikeLike
Watching the Big East get ripped apart from the geographical center of the conference was pretty dramatic. I am not at all sure that it was any less “exciting” than the current PAC, though it was not about money.
Temple was different. The school did not support the football program at all. I believe that their highest average attendance was under 20,000 and one year the average was around 5,000.
The Big East gave Temple a few years to show that they intended to support football and it never happened. At the time, the Big East was P6, and Temple was a school with attendance below 20,000 at their best.
Honestly at the time that it happened, the people at Temple did not seem to be that upset. Of course, money was a fraction of what it is now, so they decided that it was not worth it to upgrade football.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d think UConn, USF, Temple, SMU, and Rice (oof) would object to your characterization that no relegation has occurred.
Heck, even Cincy, Louisville, TCU, and Houston, who have seen both relegation and promotion.
LikeLike
I had forgotten about the ACC’s sweetheart deal with Raycom.
Untangling the leftover threads of that deal with Raycom has proven to be one of the trickier tasks in Phillips’ early tenure — and the legacy costs of that deal, including the costly buyback of rights from Raycom to launch the ACC Network, will eventually come off the books in 2027 — at which point each ACC school will get an immediate bump of about $3 million more per year from the ACC. “It’s a one-sided deal. I can’t yell at them,” Phillips said. “They signed the deal. They got the deal. Congratulations. You got a great deal. Just like ESPN. You got a great deal. Congratulations.
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article264685514.html
LikeLike
Mike, here’s the rest of the story – ACC Commish John Swofford’s son, Chad Swofford, was the Senior Director of New Media and Business Development at Raycom Sports at the time that John Swofford signed the crappy deal with Raycom.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/06/04/the-accs-third-tier-rights-and-why-theyre-killing-the-conference/?sh=51165843637
LikeLike
Ugh, That is really ugly.
I wonder how many ACC schools realized that they were taking less money to keep alive a company with John Swofford’s son?
LikeLike
Imagine if the ACC had hired Mike Slive, and the SEC had been stuck with Swofford.
LikeLike
Since we’re discussing Oregon above…
LikeLike
So, Oregon reached out to the Big Ten to try to join the conference. That’s… pretty much not even newsworthy as surely every Pac-12 team has done that. Nothing in that statement indicates that the Big Ten is interested in Oregon joining (not saying they are or are not interested).
LikeLike
Bob: “(not saying they are or are not interested)”
I dunno… feel like the fact those ‘discussions’ supposedly weren’t attended by anyone with a real say in the matter seems to indicate interest level.
LikeLike
Most realignment reports are wrong. This one is almost meaningless even if it is true. An inquiry that involves neither the president, the AD, nor the conference commissioner is about as insignificant as it gets.
LikeLike
And in every major round of realignment there’s all sorts of NDAs and such at work.
If the Big Ten was really going for Oregon now, this meeting would be very secretive.
Sounds more like Oregon leadership/Phil Knight wanting to signal that they’re being proactive.
LikeLike
z33k: “Sounds more like Oregon leadership/Phil Knight wanting to signal that they’re being proactive.”
Given the lack of AD/president it doesn’t even sound like that. It hardly makes sense anyone would be in Chicago if no one of importance is involved.
It reads like Oregon’s someone down the chain in athletics took it upon themselves to cold call the B10 in Chicago and couldn’t get past building security, but it’s more likely someone’s blowing smoke to the press and nothing is happening at all.
LikeLike
Yeah I mean just going back to how Delany operated, the Big Ten would meet with other schools’ leadership (Prez/AD) in a location outside of the Big Ten footprint and the target school footprint. And everything would be secretive on top of that to the point of him not wanting to reveal any locations.
This is like the opposite of that; pretty much just Oregon trying to signal to everyone despite having nobody important at this meeting.
LikeLike
Absolutely z33k. It was not as though there were lots of news conferences or releases about the B1G and the LA schools.
That is also why the CA Board of Regents desire to be involved in such things would end any chance of Cal (or UCLA) changing conferences. I cannot picture Kevin Warren sitting down with the CA Regents to discuss UCLA or Cal.
LikeLike
I think everyone is making too big of a deal trying to figure out why USC and UCLA went to the BiG alone. The truth could be as simple as there not being any other feasible way, as it could have been potentially very problematic to coordinate with more parties. The Pac-12’s very public attempt to raid the Big 12 a decade ago failed becasue it was too ambitious AND too public.
LikeLike
@Redwood
Fair point and the UC Regents would have surely tried to stop it if the news didn’t go public on the same day.
Secrecy was key and involving only USC and UCLA was important.
LikeLike
The Pac-12’s very public attempt to raid the Big 12 a decade ago failed because it was too ambitious AND too public.
As I recall, it failed because the deal made no sense without Texas, and Texas added a condition (the Longhorn Network) that the Pac would not accept. There was no combination of schools the Pac wanted if it did not include Texas. But it did not want a member with a side hustle the others didn’t have. I have not seen any reckoning of the story that states it would have worked if the parties had kept quiet or if the deal were simpler.
Now, you could be right about the Big Ten’s reasons, but I can think of several other equally simple explanations, We just don’t know yet, but I imagine we will soon.
LikeLike
It failed because ESPN and Fox wanted it to fail. They made it a point to let the Big 12 know they would make as much as the Pac. They worked very hard against it. The Pac 12 and Big 12 contracts were similar. The Big 12 has distributed more than the Pac 12 every year.
The Texas president held a news conference the next day and talked about how they could get the same money and similar scheduling without changing conferences and dealing with so much extra travel for the student athletes. Don’t remember him ever mentioning the LHN. It was a minor factor if at all. It didn’t exist at that point.
LikeLike
bullet: “The Texas president held a news conference the next day and talked about how they could get the same money and similar scheduling without changing conferences . . . Don’t remember him ever mentioning the LHN. It was a minor factor if at all. It didn’t exist at that point.”
That is flat-out wrong. I was on the A&M faculty at that time and the LHN was a HUGE problem:
1. The primary reason the Big XII broke up was the LHN.
2. The primary reason that TX, OU, A&M, Colorado et al didn’t go to the Pac-12 was the LHN.
3. The primary reason A&M went to the SEC was the LHN.
LikeLike
Colorado was the first school to give notice to the B12 when they accepted an invite to the PAC. Nebraska accepted the B10 invite shortly after that. A&M had been angling for an SEC invite ever since Arkansas got one. Probably thought Texas heading to the PAC would provide the political cover to break east. Since Texas never left A&M used the LHN, out of session legislature and alum governor to make the break a year later. Texas dropping out did stop OU, oSu,TT to the PAC.
LikeLike
Little8: “Colorado was the first school to give notice to the B12 when they accepted an invite to the PAC. Nebraska accepted the B10 invite shortly after that. A&M had been angling for an SEC invite ever since Arkansas got one. Probably thought Texas heading to the PAC would provide the political cover to break east. Since Texas never left A&M used the LHN, out of session legislature and alum governor to make the break a year later. Texas dropping out did stop OU, oSu,TT to the PAC.”
That’s what I said. All of this happened because DeLoss Dodds placed the Longhorn Network ahead of the conference. It was more than an obsession, he was a monomaniac.
LikeLike
What does being an Aggie faculty member have to do with it? Anything that comes out of A&M about Texas is almost invariably wrong.
A&M wasn’t even going. They had decided to go to the SEC in 2010.
So do you believe contemporaneous statements by the people who actually made the decisions or rumors at a major rival?
LikeLike
bullet: “A&M wasn’t even going. They had decided to go to the SEC in 2010.”
They decided to go the the SEC after Texas announced they were going to televise Texas high school football on the LHN.
LikeLike
Canzano responds to this report.
• No Michael Schill? No Rob Mullens? No Kevin Warren? McMurphy is a good reporter. I trust him. I was told early on that Phil Knight and Tinker Hatfield were interested in exploring some options. Sounds to me like the Nike contingent may be doing the heavy lifting.
• One source in Knight’s inner circle told me after USC and UCLA defected to the Big Ten: “The good news is Phil is working hard to determine the correct path forward and hopefully to determine one that is viable. My guess is, his aspirations aren’t practical or achievable. But try to tell that to the man that has won most battles in his life that seemed out of reach.”
• Oregon is a tentpole among the remaining 10 universities in the Pac-12. The prevailing sentiment among conference athletic directors is that UO shopped itself around significantly after USC and UCLA announced their departure, and learned it didn’t have great immediate options.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-phil-knight-talking-with
LikeLike
And it makes sense for Oregon to be shopping itself heavily because they are uniquely among Pac-12 teams in that their value is as high as it has ever been and they look likely to only go down in the future and become a less valuable option. Other schools are likely to remain generally stable or maybe even improve (I could see Colorado, for example, look a lot more appealing if they can rattle off a few good seasons in football and have an attendance/ratings spike).
LikeLike
Colorado, for example, look a lot more appealing if they can rattle off a few good seasons in football and have an attendance/ratings spike.
Oregon has been a national contender for more than a decade, and people are skeptical they can sustain it. So, why would a few good seasons for Colorado be any different?
Folsom Field seats about 50k, and most of their games last year had reported attendance in the high 40s, so they do not have much room to grow without expanding the stadium. In its current configuration, Folsom Field would be the smallest of any Big Ten stadium except Northwestern’s Ryan Field.
LikeLike
Yeah, CU _could_ be a potential addition in the 2040’s if between now and then, they manage to expand the stadium, regularly sell out 70K or more and show that they can pull TV viewers.
While Denver has some B10 grads and CO is growing, it’s not exactly brimming with football talent, however, so that’d be tough.
LikeLike
The problem is that virtually every program in the Pac-12 other than Oregon, Washington, and Stanford is looked at as a laggard athletically.
Maybe Utah is seen as being good in football over recent history, but it’s a young program in terms of power conference play, and even they haven’t done anything in the Pac-12 until recently.
Cal, Colorado, Arizona State, Arizona, etc. are just seen as average football programs in the struggle to get to bowl games.
Arizona’s got a great basketball program, but there really isn’t much there outside of Oregon, Washington, and Stanford.
Pac-12 has had 11 championship games: The winners: Oregon 4, Stanford 3, Washington 2, USC 1, and Utah 1 (the latest one).
It’s going to be hard for other programs to emerge as the spotlight dims a bit but the expanded playoff should help. Just getting bids to that should help teams, but it’s hard to have an extended run like Oregon is having even just of 20-25 years.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that Colorado would necessarily be a great option for the Big Ten in the future. My point was more that they could potentially improve themselves as a candidate in the future while I think Oregon is likely at peak value now.
More to the specifics though – and maybe it’s because I’m an old fogey – but Colorado in the 90’s was basically where Oregon is today in football. They even won (half) a national championship and were a quality/ranked team. They also had a run in the early 2000’s of winning their division in the Big 12 and being decent.
LikeLike
@SideshowBob
Yeah I agree with you (my post was just about where the programs are now).
Oregon can easily fall off of where it is; a couple losing seasons, and recruiting falling off, and the whole thing collapses.
Especially since they have no external advantage outside of their Nike ties (admittedly very powerful ties); they’re not a giant institution in a major market or recruiting hotbed or near one.
I’d be much more willing to take Arizona State if they had Oregon’s success levels of the last 20-25 years. Same applies to Cal or Colorado.
Not being a giant enrollment flagship near a big market hurts Oregon measurably; the fact that their enrollment is so low is questionable given Oregon State’s enrollment is significantly larger and there’s no academic reason for Oregon’s to be so low.
Oregon State has an enrollment 50% larger than Oregon and both have >80% acceptance rates. Do people just not want to go to Oregon? Lack of STEM path offerings? Not sure what it is, but it’s just not a good thing when you talk about an institution’s long-term prospects.
Rutgers and Maryland work because you know what they’ll be in 20 or 40 or 60 years; giant enrollment/state flagship/prestigious research institutions located in and around the largest markets in the country with hundreds of thousands of alums located in the best real estate.
That’s true of Washington and Arizona State as well. Cal and Colorado are in that category as well though I’d bet on the Washington and Arizona State fanbases over the longer term (just a hunch).
Only Washington’s enough of an athletics brand to have the whole package right now. Better to let the next 15 years play out for the others.
LikeLike
z33k: “Oregon State has an enrollment 50% larger than Oregon and both have >80% acceptance rates. Do people just not want to go to Oregon? Not sure what it is, but it’s just not a good thing when you talk about an institution’s long-term prospects.”
When I was on active duty in the Army, I was heavily involved with the military operational ration program. My PhD is in Food Science. The only company in the US that makes freeze-dried food is Oregon Freeze Dry, which is located about five miles from OSU in Corvallis. I’ve visited the company and the Food Science Dept at OSU several times.
OSU is a land grant school and one of the best in the nation in both food science and agriculture. They are unique with regard to the crops grown in the Northwest region and in their involvement with the seafood industry/aquaculture. They get a good deal of funding from the food industry and place a lot of graduates into food companies.
LikeLike
Zeek, yeah, UO doesn’t have an engineering school. Though IU and UGa and UNC don’t either and IU and UGa are still big while UNC is more selective. Though NC and GA and even IN have bigger state populations and UNC’s selectivity is due in part to them limiting OOS to 15% of the freshman class so it’s hella hard to get in to if you are not an NC resident.
LikeLike
OSU is a land grant school and one of the best in the nation in both food science and agriculture. They are unique with regard to the crops grown in the Northwest region and in their involvement with the seafood industry/aquaculture. They get a good deal of funding from the food industry and place a lot of graduates into food companies.
This is why it’s so wrong for people to disparage the non-AAU schools’ academics. OSU is not a bad school, merely because the AAU metrics do not favor the things it is great at.
LikeLike
Yeah Oregon State having more comprehensive offerings makes that a more natural choice for most looking at those two schools.
Still, it’s tough; Oregon’s sort of like Nebraska in the sense that they have the fan support locally/state-wide and even a bit of regional support outside the state.
But it’s just tough to take Oregon knowing that it’s almost entirely just a football move in terms of their football program; it’s hard to see any basic fit outside of that compared to everyone else:
With every other school at issue whether FSU, Miami, UNC/Duke, UVa, etc. in the ACC or Washington, Stanford, Cal, etc. in the Pac-12, there’s a more comprehensive package there in terms of location, research expenditures, etc. Those schools fit regardless of whether the football program is good (though obviously you want schools that have a higher likelihood of having good football/athletics programs).
LikeLike
@Marc
I agree with that which is why I generally refer to total research expenditures instead of AAU these days.
A dollar is a dollar despite the AAU preferring medical research and the “prestige fields” of research. Of course most of the AAUs do all types of research and do all types well.
But a lot of universities do research that affects their communities/regions and that includes Arizona State, Nebraska, Iowa State, Oregon State, Georgia among others.
There’s plenty of important agriculture, geology, anthropology, and other disciplines of research that may not be as prestigious, but do benefit the regions and the country as a whole.
That research may not be as prestigious as medical research which has JHU reaching $3 billion in annual research expenditures, but I don’t think putting down institutions that don’t have medical schools is a useful exercise.
The problem with Oregon is just that it doesn’t do much…; around $100-150 million in annual research.
It’s just reaching any sort of heft; the rest of the schools in the Big Ten discussion are all well over $300 million in annual research. FSU, Miami, Va Tech, etc. all reach that level.
LikeLike
UGA has had a separate college of engineering for about 10 years. They have had engineering programs within the college of agriculture for decades. Now their offerings are pretty limited relative to Georgia Tech, but they are not non-existent.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Oh right, UGa has some engineering programs. Technically. But really, their engineering offerings are so slight that UGa is seen as the 3rd best public for engineering in GA (after GTech and Kennesaw State).
LikeLike
Apparently the escalators in the Big Ten contracts have a specific figure built in for ND.
Other expansion is a good faith renegotiation of contracts.
So that’s interesting but seems unlikely to be in play this time around.
LikeLike
Yeah. Without ND or any FL school, I just don’t see the already existing B10 contracts going up much at all.
Adding 2 West Coast teams still possible if the B10 can monetize the After Dark slot, but that’s about it.
LikeLike
I also think that we’ll get a few years of sample size on what USC/UCLA travel looks like for other sports.
By 2027-2028, the Big Ten presidents can decide whether they want another go at 2+ Pac-12 schools.
Given the Pac-12 is very likely to sign a short-term deal, there isn’t much risk of just taking a wait and see approach to what travel looks like and whether adding some more Pac-12 schools is worth it without ND.
If they really want to, they can look at Washington/Stanford or Washington/Oregon or Cal/Stanford or some other combo in a couple of years. Or just wait until the 2030s expansion round when we’re likely to see the Big Ten and SEC move to ~20 schools.
For this 7 year contract though, it feels as if it’s ND + others or nothing.
The next contract is when big things will probably happen though I think most of us assume the next contract will be around 6 years and timed to end around 2036 for the smoothest transition possible.
LikeLike
z33k, that is pretty much my take now as well. Unless Notre Dame does an about face, we won’t see any major changes for the next few years. The Big Ten will probably peek into the status of PAC-12 teams in a few years just to see if the calculus has changed (maybe get a better feel for Oregon’s long term prospects in both football and academics at that time). Otherwise, they will stay put until the early 2030’s when the ACC become potentially an option and it will be chaos among ACC/PAC-12/Big 12 teams vying for position.
One big aspect that could change things before then (other than Notre Dame) would be if the impending College Football Playoff changes might change the environment enough that adding teams from the PAC-12 or wherever might be beneficial.
LikeLike
Yeah I think most of us have reached that point; if the most important schools athletically outside of the Big Ten/SEC/ND are in the ACC now (FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC), then I’m not sure there’s any sort of rush for the Big Ten. Even if some of those are SEC-bound, I doubt all 4 are. Next expansion round can be built around Miami and maybe UNC if they come; there’s still too much in the air in my opinion to commit to 4 more Pac-12 schools.
As you mention though there may be other sources of money soon (CFP expansion/Big Ten After Dark window) that may cause the Big Ten to look at 2+ other Pac-12 schools at some point sooner than the 2030s.
I still think Washington and Stanford end up in the Big Ten at some point to get the 2 best fits academically+athletically out west and plant flags in SF+Seattle, but it might be the mid-2030s after the ACC situation is sorted out…
If the Big Ten wants to try to add them when the CFP money increases (and add an ESPN night games) then maybe that’s a reasonable decision to smooth the money, but I don’t think there’s urgency unless USC/UCLA complain about travel issues and want 2 others in their time zone.
LikeLike
z33k – I still think all you guys are selling Washington short. The state has a decent population (7.7m) with double digit growth over the last ten years.(+14.1%). Less population than NC (10.6m) but faster growth (10.7%). The Huskies recently renovated their stadium and are one of the few programs in a NFL market that still has good to great fan support. Washington State may as well be in Idaho, so UDub basically owns the state.
UNC, on the other hand, shares North Carolina with NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, East Carolina, and App State. UNC even shares its MSA with NC State and Duke. While the state of NC is bigger than Washington, UDub most likely has a much larger market share of its state than UNC does with NC. Locally, NC State outdraws UNC in football attendance. My point is the state of North Carolina is Balkinized with UNC having – at best – a plurality of support, while UDub has the vast majority of support in its state. Even figuring that their is more intense football support in NC, it is spread out over six schools.
And UDub historically and currently is a better football program.
The big difference is UNC has choices and UDub does not. It is B1G or bust for the Huskies.
LikeLike
Zeek, if how the CFP money is split in the future is akin to the MBB tournament system (credits from appearances and wins), I can see the B10 adding UW and Stanford.
LikeLike
I will add that I personally am not as high on the ACC options in general as some on here. Outside of FSU, I don’t think the ACC teams in consideration are really any better options than top Pac-12 ones. But if I were the Big Ten, I’d rather have all the options on the table (i.e. ACC teams being possibilities) before committing to forever relationship than prematurely making changing. I know that there’s a love for UNC here, but I don’t see them as really that valuable to be a linchpin around which to base an expansion policy.
To Richard’s point, I’d also just add for consideration that depending on how CFP revenues are split, there may be an incentive for essentially killing one of the Power 5 programs and having their be one fewer mouth at the table to feed. If the Pac-12 gets gutting by losing another 2-4 of the higher profile teams and then the leftovers go to the Big 12 (or some new merged conference) then you might see something like the four “Power 4” champs get auto bids and revenue and if you get credits for having more teams in, then having a larger conference with more premier programs (as the SEC has been doing but the Big Ten is working towards as well) that get more playoff spots might be an important consideration for any expansion. A lot would depend on the specifics, but the Big Ten along with the SEC would be in a position of strength for dictating terms.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge
Those are fair points.
I think Washington is absolutely a perfect fit (I just wish there was a second that was as perfect out West, Stanford comes closest – just has a smaller enrollment given its status as an elite private and the smaller fanbase as a result of that).
Washington has everything: athletics, fanbase, market, the prestige/research/enrollment.
I would quite frankly be surprised if Washington never gets an invite to the Big Ten; the school is the best fit other than USC and UCLA in the Pac-12.
In a lot of ways it is a better fit than every ACC school. The money is obviously the question and we know TV networks will pay more for FSU or Miami because they’re guaranteed to be title contenders if they have good coaches since they’re located in the hottest recruiting region in the country.
Miami has done next to nothing for the last 20 years and yet has sat in the top 20 of the blue chip/talent composites that entire time.
LikeLike
@SideshowBob
I think Miami also works because the TV Networks crunch the data; they know Miami can find its way into the national conversation easily if they hit on a coach and a top 10 Miami is as good of a ratings draw outside of FSU as any; they just haven’t been that for much of the last 20 years. (Obviously speaks to the fragility of success).
There’s not that many universities that can be out of the national title hunt as long as Miami has been and yet stay in the top 20 on talent composite lists pretty much that entire time.
And this is about schools that can win national championships because that does drive ratings; FSU, Miami, and Clemson are the 3 obvious ones outside the Big Ten/SEC/ND grouping.
Oregon’s been to 2 title games in recent memory, so they’re in the picture, but they just don’t have the location advantage that the 3 ACC schools have. If Oregon’s down for 20 years, they wouldn’t be able to flip the switch like those 3 can.
And ratings ultimately follow from rankings and matchups involving ranked teams and fanbase size and all of that.
I think Miami in the Big Ten would be way more valuable than they would be to the ACC or SEC because they’d be joining a nationalized grouping. In the SEC, they’d just be the 3rd Florida school and the much smaller private one.
Miami’s value is maximized playing the big brands outside the South as an interest story; they’d basically be the Duke of cfb whenever they’re good if they’re in the Big Ten.
I always compare the Hurricanes and Trojans to the Heat and the Lakers. Miami is the new money/young version of LA. As a national interest story, I think Miami would be far more valuable to the Big Ten than anyone else; put them in the same conference as USC, UCLA, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, (Washington) and you have national games.
LikeLike
z33k – I agree. Miami has much more value to the B1G than the SEC.
The B1G could take UDub, Stanford, Cal & Oregon now if an After Dark package with ESPN works. Let’s face it, it will work. Nobody in the B1G is taking a current revenue haircut. They’d only be taking a future revenue haircut. When you get to the type numbers that are getting thrown around, does it really make a difference to Purdue if they receive $75m instead of $80m? With these four additions, the B1G covers the entire West Coast and the NYC to DC corridor (with big markets but limited CFB interest) and the Midwest with higher CFB interest.
Then the B1G could take ND and Miami in the 2036 to complete their geographical domination of the sport.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the future, only the Power 2 champs get auto bids and byes.
LikeLike
In the future, only the Power 2 champs get auto bids and byes.
I don’t know how far in the future you mean, but that certainly won’t be the case in the current round.
Why do you think Greg Sankey was prepared to offer autobids to the top six conference champions, when at the time there were five power conferences? It’s because granting access to everybody keeps Congress out of it.
It’s also why the current 4-team playoff is structured the way it is. The Gang of Five have received just one bid in seven years — Cincinnati last season, and it took a series of coincidences for it to happen. But because they have hope, the G5 do not raise a stink at a system that is still heavily stacked against them.
LikeLike
Marc, I should clarify:
In the future, when there will only be the P2, the B12, and some G5 conferences (so any remnants of the PAC and ACC worth anything have been absorbed in to the B12), there will only be 2 (or maybe 3, for the B12) auto bids for conference champs to the quarterfinal round with the first round having 6 (or 5) games. In a 13-14 team playoff, no conference can complain that they weren’t given a legitimate shot to win it all.
LikeLike
Article about the increasing number of people, particularly young people, switching to free TV with electronic antennas, due to the high cost of streaming services. The article states that 40 million of 127 million households are now using antennas and that number should rise to 50 million by 2025.
Well we know that they will be able to find the B1G package using their antennas.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/inflation-weary-millennials-canceling-netflix-for-antennas/
LikeLike
HD TV has a much smaller broadcast radius than SD TV (now defunct), so antennas only work in the city or close by, within 40 miles tops, and then under ideal conditions.
LikeLike
Well, the vast majority of the US population lives in metro areas and even smaller metros have TV stations. Not too many people live in the boonies these days!
LikeLike
Not too many people live where there is no reception at all. But as you get to the outskirts or in sub-major markets (not necessarily the boondocks), it is increasingly likely that you won’t get all of the major networks, or at least cannot depend on them.
Obviously this is a first-world problem.
LikeLike
Its not a problem with a good antenna. Now if you just have an indoor antenna, its a different issue.
LikeLike
Where I live I would not get most of the major networks, or at least not reliably. Still, I was amazed when I saw the rate at which OTA TV was growing, a very rare case where a technology makes a roaring comeback when it was thought to be dying.
LikeLike
Only because of the legal nonsense about retransmission of signals. The streamers should be allowed to provide local channels without having to pay the broadcast networks as long as they don’t charge for it. In other words, they should be able to set up the locals as an add-on option with a price of $0.00. The functional difference between that solution and setting up an antenna is minimal.
LikeLike
I get 122 channels on 27 stations in Atlanta with a relatively simple inside antenna. Now I live relatively close to the major towers. But there is a lot that is OTA now with all the digital subchannels.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/florida-state-president-seminoles-very-aggressive-realignment.html
Florida State president says Seminoles will be “very aggressive” in realignment.
President Richard McCullough, in a speech at the Tallahassee Chamber of Commerce conference said: “It’s (conference affiliation) something I’m spending a lot of time on and we’re getting a lot of help. We’re trying to do anything we can to think about how we remain competitive. Florida State is expected to win. We’re going to be very aggressive.”
Dustin Lewis of SI/FanNation’s Nole GameDay wrote about FSU’s mentality last month, citing sources that the Seminoles have met with both the Big Ten and the SEC:
“Sources tell NoleGameday that Florida State is in the process of exploring a move to a new conference. The Seminoles have had discussions with the SEC and Big Ten since last summer. Both conferences have displayed an interest in adding the university to their group of current members, along with other schools in the ACC.
The SEC is trying to do whatever it can to stay ahead of the Big Ten’s expansion plans. There has been some discussion around the conference pushing to get Oklahoma and Texas in the fold as soon as 2023 to leapfrog the Big Ten’s addition of USC and UCLA. The SEC does not want to let the Big Ten creep into the southeast TV markets and will do everything in its power to stop that from becoming reality.
While the SEC would represent more regional matchups for Florida State, the Big Ten offers a tradition of excellence that could boost the university’s academic research.
NoleGameday has been informed that the conference is considering to offer the Seminoles membership despite the fact they’re not an AAU school. This isn’t something that all of the current members of the conference are necessarily privy about.”
.
.
.
At any rate, McCullough’s comments here should be taken in context. These were at a local chamber of commerce conference, so the audience is presumably Seminoles’ boosters and potential boosters. And it makes sense that the school president would at least indicate to that crowd that he and his team are on top of the realignment situation. But even with that said, the “very aggressive” and “getting a lot of help” remarks are well beyond what we often hear in these situations. So Florida State will certainly be a school to keep an eye on in any further realignment talks.
LikeLike
Sure. In the ‘30’s.
As I mentioned, FSU is the big prize left that both the B10 and SEC would woo. But the GOR is pretty much in breakable.
LikeLike
This is far better than most realignment rumors, because it involves a person with decision-making authority speaking on the record, which does not happen every day. The words “very aggressive” are not synonymous with “wait until 2036.” And, “getting a lot of help” — to do what? It sounds like he is setting up a move sooner than 2036, or he will have a lot of explaining to do. But I still cannot imagine how he gets out of the GOR at acceptable cost.
LikeLike
Could “getting a lot of help” mean getting politicians involved to try to muscle their way out of the GOR? I don’t know what basis they could have, but it wouldn’t necessarily stop politicians from trying.
LikeLike
Paging Ron DeSantis (who’s no stranger to battles with Disney)…
LikeLike
Disney is not a party to the GOR. It is an agreement between the ACC and its member schools. If the GOR can be broken, the biggest losers are schools like Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Wake Forest, and BC, that have not the slightest prayer of invitations to the Big Ten or the SEC. To them you could add the schools like Georgia Tech and N.C. State that might be invited but cannot be positive. And Notre Dame, which obviously can have a Big Ten invite whenever it wants, but presently would prefer to see the ACC intact.
LikeLike
Marc: “But I still cannot imagine how he gets out of the GOR at acceptable cost.”
I think the only possible loophole is that the 2036 GOR was predicated upon a seemingly unethical and possibly corrupt insider deal between ACC Commish John Stofford, his son Chad who was an executive at Raycom, and Raycom and ESPN who both made out like bandits. There might be enough wiggle room there to sue.
LikeLike
Colin,
That’s what I was thinking. Since FSU was the last hold out on the GOR, I think Swofford personally went to FSU to talk about the GOR. Do you think it’s possible he made a misleading statements or over promised what it the GOR could do for FSU?
LikeLike
Doug: “Do you think it’s possible he made a misleading statements or over promised what it the GOR could do for FSU?”
Possibly. The obvious conflict-of-interest is John Swofford negotiating the GOR on behalf of the conference while his son worked for Raycom, which held a partial ACC GOR at the time and was also in cahoots with ESPN. This is especially true since the deal has subsequently been described as fantastic for Raycom/ESPN and pitiful for the ACC.
There is no question that this deal had plenty of stink on it. But is it illegal?
LikeLike
I would imagine that all of the ACC presidents, including at FSU, knew of the conflict between Swofford, Raycom, and ESPN. If they did not, and if the statute of limitations is still open (big question), then even if the GOR and ESPN contracts are technically legal, there might be room to sue for damages against the three entities.
I would assume that the statute of limitations would start to run at the time of discovery (unless everyone knew upfront which means no case at all), so the statute could be open and the potential damages could be huge. It would be a tough case, since FSU, Clemson, or whichever other schools, would need to establish that they would not have signed the agreement absent the civil fraud. If they won, it would shake things up.
It would be a different way to get out of a GOR.
LikeLike
Bernie: “I would imagine that all of the ACC presidents, including at FSU, knew of the conflict between Swofford, Raycom, and ESPN. If they did not then even if the GOR and ESPN contracts are technically legal, there might be room to sue for damages against the three entities.”
I tend to agree. It boils down to “Did John Swofford act in good faith as the representative of the ACC?” Considering how bad the deal is for the conference and how sweet it is for Raycom and ESPN, maybe there is a case to be made.
LikeLike
I have been thinking the same. The question would be what FSU knew at the time about Chad Swofford’s involvement.
I think Swofford personally went to FSU to talk about the GOR. Do you think it’s possible he made a misleading statements or over promised what it the GOR could do for FSU?
Courts routinely interpret what is written on the page, not what was talked about but never put on paper. FSU had lawyers, and I am sure very good ones. It would be pretty hard for them to argue that they didn’t realize what they signed. Colin’s fraud angle is more believable, but I just don’t know if there is enough of a hook there to get the ACC to settle.
LikeLike
Marc,
You’re right about the spoken word. I was thinking if there is any Email or Memo the FSU might try to hang their hat on?
LikeLike
The previous FSU President, Thrasher, who authorized/signed the extension to 2036 kept referring to contract “look-in” opportunities as being some form of protection for FSU. Anyway, since he approved the extension in 2016, wasn’t that after the Swofford stuff?
LikeLike
Everybody knew about it at the time. The ACC presidents didn’t care. That won’t work as a way around.
LikeLike
“The SEC does not want to let the Big Ten creep into the southeast TV markets and will do everything in its power to stop that from becoming reality.”
I have previously mentioned this. I believe the Big Ten and SEC will have an off-the-record ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ to stay out of each other’s turf. I also believe the lines of demarcation are pretty much set: The ACC south of the Potomac River goes to the SEC and The West to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Maybe the SEC/Big Ten have a “gentlemen’s agreement” but I’m confident it would not involve the Big Ten ceding Virginia to the SEC. That would split the DC market and the Big Ten definitely would do everything to keep that firmly as a Big Ten location. To a degree that they are “hands off” of each other’s territories, Ican’t imagine either side would let the other just take Virginia or North Carolina.
But the Big Ten playing nice and agreeing to not take any ACC schools in Florida/Georgia/South Carolina? It’s possible though I doubt it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But the Big Ten playing nice and agreeing to not take any ACC schools in Florida/Georgia/South Carolina? It’s possible though I doubt it.”
The flip side is this – do we want the SEC getting into the Four Corners? After Oklahoma joins the SEC, that conference will be contiguous with Colorado.
LikeLike
A so-called gentleman’s agreement would be patently illegal. It would also be practically impossible to make such an agreement without a bunch of people eventually knowing about it. All it takes is one person to speak up, and both conferences are toast.
I suspect the Big Ten would gladly see the SEC expand into the four corners, if it means the Big Ten is in the Deep South and Florida. Almost nobody thinks the four corners are near the top of the Big Ten’s expansion list, whereas Florida almost certainly is.
If the Big Ten gets Miami at the expense of “losing” Colorado to the SEC, which conference has won the round? Pretty obviously the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Marc – the SEC has already said that region and contiguous states are important factors in future realignment.
IF the B1G were to say something like “Every current B1G school has controlling market share in its state. Future candidates will have to show substantial market share in their state or region to be considered.” how is that illegal?
The SEC and the B1G are private organizations and free to accept or deny any candidate based of the voting members’ preference. If the B1G doesn’t want to play second fiddle in a state or region, no one is going to make them. Conferences are not monopolies.
LikeLike
@Alan: It is absolutely legal for the Big Ten and the SEC to decide on their own where they want to do business. What is illegal is for the Big Ten and the SEC to collude in a joint decision not to compete in each other’s territories.
LikeLike
Marc: “What is illegal is for the Big Ten and the SEC to collude in a joint decision not to compete in each other’s territories.”
Thus a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ rather than a formal contract. No email, no text messages, no paperwork.
LikeLike
Marc – under your reasoning, the SEC and the B1G have, in effect, been illegally colluding since 1936 (the year the SEC was founded) because they have NEVER competed in each other’s territories.
Conferences have historically been regional. Membership invitations have to be extended and accepted. Its not like a state agency putting out a request for proposal and having to take a low bid.
Most all moves are cloak and dagger when it comes to conference governance. For example, public schools not having copies of certain documents to avoid FOIA requests. If the B1G makes UVA or VA Tech a priority, as they did with Rutgers and Maryland, and the SEC decided it was in their best interests not to have a school in the state of Virginia, how is that illegal? What law does it violate? Anti-trust? How? You may think it doesn’t smell right, but that doesn’t make it illegal. Under you logic, GA Tech should have sued the B1G in 2014 for not giving them an invitation, because the B1G respected the SEC/ACC territory.
Who would be harmed? UNC gets an invitation from the SEC but the faculty wanted an invitation from the B1G? Wake Forest would take an invitation from anyone, but they aren’t getting any. There are no losers among the schools that receive an invitation from either the SEC and the B1G. While I’m not an anti-trust lawyer, I think the most important thing for anti-trust purposes, is for the CFP to be accessible to all FBS members.
If conferences choose to respect existing territories (and natural extensions to bordering states), how is that any different than current practices?
LikeLike
Thus a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ rather than a formal contract. No email, no text messages, no paperwork.
A gentlemen’s agreement is just as illegal. You might be thinking that if it is never committed to paper, it will escape detection. That is a very dangerous assumption.
Sankey and Warren can’t do it alone, as they are merely employees of the actual decision-makers, the presidents. At least some of the presidents, if not all of them, would need to be in on it.
Never mind that probably a few of the presidents won’t go along something that dishonest. Suppose they are all willing. Then one of them moves to another school in a different league, and takes the knowledge with them. Now there are people in other leagues who know about this illegal deal. Maybe someone who knows gets disgruntled, or is just stupid, and lets the secret out.
Agreeing among 34 friends to break the law is not a very good business strategy.
LikeLike
Marc – under your reasoning, the SEC and the B1G have, in effect, been illegally colluding since 1936 (the year the SEC was founded) because they have NEVER competed in each other’s territories.
As far as we know, the SEC and Big Ten never agreed between themselves (“gentlemen’s” or otherwise) not to compete. They reached those decisions independently. That is legal. Agreeing jointly not to compete is illegal.
Now, it is possible they talked it over at cocktail parties (which would be illegal), and miraculously over the past 86 years everyone who knew of this agreement was able to keep it a secret. I will let you judge how probable that is.
LikeLike
I’m very skeptical that the Big Ten and SEC can have any sort of communication about not expanding to each other’s territories.
Something like that could occur in practical effect because there isn’t enough value from institutions in the other’s territories.
But there would be no agreement.
Something closer to what Alan wrote could be implied.
i.e. The Big Ten may crunch the numbers on Ga Tech and decide that Ga Tech doesn’t have enough market share to justify its addition.
Quite frankly the schools of value in the ACC are somewhat similar to both conferences.
There may be natural outcomes such as FSU to the SEC and Miami to the Big Ten, but the Big Ten will also go for FSU too even if it ends in a polite rejection.
Both conferences will also go after UNC. While I can imagine UNC boosters/alums leaning towards the SEC, I’d be shocked if the Big Ten doesn’t try speaking to them.
So yeah, hard to see why there’d be any sort of non-compete agreement.
As Marc said, the Big Ten wouldn’t mind the SEC going West because it’d be nonsensical. The SEC and Big Ten are each acting in self-interest.
There might be a nice and tidy border between the two in the East but I don’t think that’s likely because I think Miami probably ends up in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
z33k: “I’m very skeptical that the Big Ten and SEC can have any sort of communication about not expanding to each other’s territories.”
We probably need to clarify what is each other’s “territory”. Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson would be verbotten to the Big Ten because the SEC already has schools in those states. But schools in WV, NC and VA would be fair game.
Likewise, the SEC wouldn’t go after Iowa State, Cincinnati or Pitt.
LikeLike
But what’s the benefit to the Big Ten if the only school of value to the SEC outside of its footprint +NC/VA is Notre Dame?
The ACC schools in the south are the only ones of value to both conferences.
The Big Ten not going after FSU and Miami would be crazy.
LikeLike
Likewise, the SEC wouldn’t go after Iowa State, Cincinnati or Pitt.
The SEC is not going after those schools regardless. If the Big Ten is going to generously offer to stay out of the South, it needs to get something better than that in return.
Of course, if the Big Ten simply doesn’t want to be in Florida, then fine, don’t go there. They can do that on their own. But if the B1G is going to give up something it wants, then the SEC needs to do that too.
I am ignoring the illegality of it. Even if legal, why give the SEC a free pass in Florida when they give up nothing?
LikeLike
Besides the illegality, such an agreement would be heavily in the SEC’s favor. The SEC has no known aspirations in the far west. Agreeing not to expand there is an empty gesture for them. But the Big Ten almost certainly does have aspirations south of the Potomac.
So the Big Ten would be giving up something it wants, in exchange for the SEC giving up nothing it cares about.
LikeLike
Well, a conference does become a cartel when it requires GORs.
LikeLike
Regarding Frank’s new tweet about McMurphy, I listened to the interview. McMurphy said that the Big Ten has already decided it would like to have UW, Oregon, Stanford, and Cal. What needs to be hashed out are the financial terms for admission. Oregon talking to lower-level people than Warren indicates necessary legwork is being done to get to a proposal to be presented to the higher-level execs.
And the reasons McMurphy proffered for sooner rather than later are that the Pac-12 teams don’t want to have to sign a new 5-6 year GOR to that conference, while BiG will want to avoid another round of massive scheduling headaches beyond what will be required to deal with USC & UCLA.
McMurphy also said that the impetus for the SEC and BiG going all out now to maximize revenue is to have the money to attract the best players.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if the Big Ten wanted those school, why not invite them in July or early August? Surely there was time to work out the details if that was the plan and would have made the TV deal discussion/announcement easier and more impressive.
LikeLike
I’m in agreement; if the OTA nets already told the Big Ten what those 4 were worth, then it’s tough to see how the Big Ten can somehow get more after putting pen to paper on the current 16 school configuration.
I’m skeptical everyone’s going to take a big pay cut permanently to make this work.
Either ESPN is footing a large portion of the bill or there’s some other pot of money.
(I’m excluding the expanded playoff money for now because that should just be used to smooth numbers, not pay entirely for expansion).
Maybe there’s an AD or two in the Big Ten who is super confident about getting those 4 in, but until we see the financial numbers, hard to make that stick.
LikeLike
But if the Big Ten wanted those school, why not invite them in July or early August?
I am not convinced it’ll happen, but several folks on this forum have provided believable reasons why they didn’t do it all at once.
One of them is that they believed ND was potentially in play — and the set of teams you add is different depending on whether the Irish are part of it. However unlikely it may be, that seems like reason enough — and there are others besides.
LikeLike
I would reckon the financial terms are important.
Other than something like a 50-year buy-in, I don’t know how they could make the financial aspect work. $150mm for an After Dark package and $150mm from a streamer who way overpays? I suppose that’s conceivable.
BTW, the financial aspect is probably why the B10 didn’t take these 4 before along with the no-brainer LA schools.
Any hey, I don’t have a problem with adding 3 more teams who can challenge for the CFP and 3 elite research U’s (including 2 of the very top ones in the world).
LikeLike
I forgot the punchline! McMurphy said he expects an announcement of more western realignment by CYE’22 and certainly before the 2023 football season.
LikeLike
Big 10’s TV deal expires in July, so they would prefer to have any changes to what they just signed done before then.
LikeLike
The only punchline on this blog is “….Nothing’s happening until 2036!” By the time you Rip VanWinkles wake up, the 20 school ‘B1G LEAGUE’ will have lost eight championship games to the 20 team ‘SupEr Conference’. Stanford & Co. are coming. Do you prefer salt on your crow emoji or pepper?
LikeLike
Aji amarillo aioli made with Kewpie mayonnaise please.
LikeLike
Not sure who listened to the interview, but as my first introduction to McMurphy I was not too impressed. He definitely flubbed the first question regarding “compatibility”. That word indicates more that Oregon is trying to gauge whether it’s pretty enough for the ball as opposed to negotiating the dowry. McMurphy also seems to look at things through the prism of a fan or coach as opposed to a university president (or even AD). Still, he apparently has a stellar reputation for breaking real news. As Marc wrote, we will know within a year whether to write him off when it comes to realignment.
As for why an invitation hasn’t already been extended to more teams, I think one important piece of information needed to evaluate a buy-in is what the likely terms of the new Pac TV deal will/would be.
LikeLike
I was not too impressed. He definitely flubbed the first question regarding “compatibility”. That word indicates more that Oregon is trying to gauge whether it’s pretty enough for the ball as opposed to negotiating the dowry.
I wondered about that too. Oregon is not the girl you just met at a party.
LikeLike
Well, I will give McMurphy this much credit: it’s a very specific claim that is either true or that he will have to explain if it is not.
LikeLike
Only way that the Big Ten expands with all 4 of the other West Coast schools soon is if there’s an ESPN deal in the wings.
Just no way FOX/NBC/CBS and BTN can come close to paying for 4 more schools.
The OTA nets might toss some money in but it won’t come close without ESPN tossing in $180-200 million a year (scaling up over the 5-6 time frame to 2030).
LikeLike
ABC won’t be able to do one of the 3 main time windows. Isn’t clear if ESPN would be able to show a Big 10 game in one of those windows. Is the exclusive window only for OTA? Or is it for all major networks (ESPN2, BTN and FS1 are a definite step down, ESPN isn’t that much below)?
10:30 just isn’t going to generate the type of money the other time windows do.
LikeLike
Yeah it’d have to be an ESPN exclusive night window and then add semifinals and try to sell that.
I’d imagine the FOX/NBC/CBS windows require no other OTA + ESPN.
They’re okay with FS1/BTN at the same slots, but ESPN probably counts as an OTA due to its ratings/reach which is OTA-like.
LikeLike
On the other hand, maybe it doesn’t have to? If CBS and NBC are paying $350mm for a good window (OK, and 1-2 CCG’s over 7 years), it’s possible that the After Dark window gets $150mm. But yeah, how they could come up with another $150mm after that is a good question. I can only think of a streamer paying crazy money or something like a 50-year buy-in period for these schools.
LikeLike
I think the other thing is adding semifinals and a 10th game…
LikeLike
I don’t see how adding conference semifinals could work.
10th game, I could see at least being in the realm of possibility (or an SEC-B10 Challenge) but also seem pretty tricky that several schools would object to.
LikeLike
I think it’d just be a flex 10th conference game week at the end of the schedule: “Big Ten Tournament week” where all the teams with 5+ wins play with 7v8, 9v10, 11v12 etc. on FS1/BTN while 1v4, 2v3, 5v6 are on the OTA networks.
And then championship game after…
LikeLike
Semifinals do not add inventory. They just re-arrange the inventory that would otherwise exist. The benefit, if any, is to create exciting match-ups in the top games. But it means nobody can sell tickets until a week before, since they don’t know who they will be playing or where. That random Rutgers v. Purdue game in the final week that wasn’t on the schedule until 7 days prior would probably play to an audience of about 3,000 people.
They added a flex game during the COVID year, but live attendance didn’t matter because the stadiums were closed.
LikeLike
@Marc
Technically correct, but the upgrade of a non-conference game to a conference tournament week is vast.
Semifinals would probably draw ratings in the 6-10 million range depending on thet quality of the teams.
LikeLike
Zeek:
Depends on which OOC game. A P5 game or a buy game?
A 10th conference game replacing a buy game definitely means better TV inventory but also would mean not 7 home games every year, which I would definitely see pushback against.pends on whi
LikeLike
Technically correct, but the upgrade of a non-conference game to a conference tournament week is vast.
You need to break it into two parts: adding a 10th game and how you schedule it.
There is a substantial bump in adding a 10th conference game. However, it means hardly anyone would ever play a meaningful non-conference game again. Also, Iowa/USC would have only 6 home games in the years they play ISU/ND on the road. These are among the reasons why a 10th game is a tough sell.
Now…if you get agreement to add a 10th game, what is the marginal benefit of flex scheduling to create semi-finals? You get two late-season games that are guaranteed to be good, but 6–7 others that are guaranteed to be duds that play to near-empty stadiums. Is that a great trade-off?
LikeLike
ABC won’t be able to do one of the 3 main time windows. Isn’t clear if ESPN would be able to show a Big 10 game in one of those windows.
ABC is precluded for sure. We just don’t know about ESPN. The other wildcard is ESPN2, which gets slightly better ratings than FS1 and of course waaaaay better ratings than Peacock or BTN.
So maybe a modest bump from the existing partners, afternoon and/or evening windows on ESPN2, and an after dark package, together combine to pay for 4 more schools.
A 20-team Big Ten would have 10 games some weekends. After accounting for the 3 so-called “exclusive” windows, 70% of the games are still unaccounted for. I can’t believe you would want that many on FS1, BTN, and Peacock.
LikeLike
Marc, well, yes. Thanksgiving weekend will have to have 10 games, but you could put 3-4 of them on Black Friday. No other weekend has to have 10 (you just have to make sure the same game opponent pairs get the weekend before off Thanksgiving weekend to make it fair).
It’s more the monetary part (to pay for 4 more West Coast teams) that I’m dubious about. Some combo of an After Dark package/over paying streamer/reduced payout/buy-in time for the new 4 schools/using Playoff money to hide losing money on the new additions? Who knows, man.
I guess we’ll find out if the rumor becomes true.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/08/22/In-Depth/Media-Rights.aspx
Another article on the TV contract. Not much new, but it repeats the $8.05 billion figure and quotes Warren some on his strategy. Has some interesting charts at the end on Twitter/Instagram/Facebook followers by P5 school.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Bullet.
Yeah, the social media followers are interesting and seems to track reasonably well with the number of hardcore fans (who watch every game).
Seems like the schools that have over 1mm are definitely worth adding while the schools that are between half a million and 1 million probably are.
Only programs above 2mm:
Bama
LSU
Michigan
OSU
UGa
Clemson
Over 1M (+ over half a million in parenthesis):
New SEC: Bama, LSU, UGa, OU, Tenn, Texas, UF, Auburn, (UArk), (A&M), (SC), (Ole Miss), (MS St), (UK)
New B10: UMich, OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, (MSU), (UNL), (Iowa)
New Pac: UO, (UW)
ACC: Clemson, FSU, (Miami barely misses 1M)
New B12: (WVU), (OK St)
Only outlier is USC, who seems to have zero social media game. Then again, we know that Troy doesn’t draw all that well when they are down and playing nobodies, but the huge SoCal market tunes in in massive numbers when USC is a top team playing another top team.
UCLA, Utah, Louisville, TCU barely miss half a mil.
And no numbers for ND given.
LikeLike
I know USC fans are fickle, but for them to have the same following as Wake Forest? That is hard to believe.
LikeLike
It could be a methodology issue. Seems like USC Athletics is the official USC account, not USC Football. It’s possible that USC is one of the few/only schools that puts out football social media under their athletic department rather than their football team.
LikeLike
Taking out the Pac means the $50 million from the CFP gets split 4 ways. With the new deal, that may be $100 million, so $25 million to Big 10. Big 10 probably gets one more $40 million bowl slot. That pays for one school. With UW/OU worth $90 and Cal/Stanford $60, the 4 would still be about $70 million short of breakeven. With a buy-in and that deficit split 20 ways, its probably not noticeable by the time they get a full share in 2030 or so.
LikeLike
UW/UO are more like $60mm together and Stanford/Cal $90mm. I suppose the playoff money could alleviate some of that. And a buy-in period? And a streamer paying crazy money? And monetizing the After Dark spot?
Who knows, man.
LikeLike
In honor of this 3,000 comment post (and its picture heading) I have to ask. Has anyone ever seen Saul Goodman and Jon Wilner in the same room at the same time?
LikeLike
I am not saying it’ll happen or that the numbers work, but here are all the drivers I can think of for adding four more Pac schools:
1) Sell an After Dark package to ESPN
2) Sell an afternoon/evening package to ESPN2, assuming this does not stomp on the existing deals’ exclusivity clauses (ESPN mothership unclear)
3) Sell a package to Amazon or Apple
4) Postseason revenue goes up, because the playoff expands to 12 or 16, and more Big Ten schools get into it
5) Postseason revenue also goes up because the Pac is now dead, and its former earnings are carved up by everyone else
6) BTN carriage goes up, because San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle are now “Big Ten markets”
7) The deals just done with Fox, CBS, and NBC, go up a little, due to the same new markets. We keep hearing about expansion escalators in those contracts. That has to be worth something.
Taken singly, none of the above is enough to move the needle. Taken together, maybe they do.
LikeLike
Good points, and if a big chunk of the CFP money is sent to those who appear and win games (credits) (like in the case of the Big Dance), then schools like UO, UW, and Stanford could pay for themselves in a 16-team playoff world.
LikeLike
Yep, and add in the fact that Stanford, Cal, Oregon and Washington would likely accept lower payments for a fairly long time to get in and this can probably work. And yes, the reason for the delay could be that they’re working all of that out right now.
I haven’t visited this website in a month. Last time I was here I was talking about all of the rumors of Pac 12 schools joining the Big Ten and most of you were very dismissive. I skimmed the last month of posts and most of them were still dismissive. It looks like just recently some of you are finally waking up to the possibility that this might actually be happening. But I suspect most of you are still in denial.
Maybe it doesn’t happen. But I think it’s pretty likely that it does.
LikeLike
Problem is just where’s the money coming from; unless there’s parts of the new CFP contract that reward extra members in a conference, it’s just hard to see:
ESPN doesn’t have interest in a 4th Big Ten package that’s mostly West Coast at a premium rate.
FOX/CBS/NBC only have specific escalators for ND; everyone else is just “good faith negotiation”.
I still think the odds are pretty low that the Big Ten expands again before 2028+.
LikeLike
It looks like just recently some of you are finally waking up to the possibility that this might actually be happening. But I suspect most of you are still in denial.
I believe most of us are still a bit skeptical, because we do not see how you get the math to work. However, I am open to the possibility that perhaps it can. I prefer to be open-minded, because it means I remain open to new information.
LikeLike
Marc: “I believe most of us are still a bit skeptical . . . . I prefer to be open-minded, because it means I remain open to new information.”
I agree, that’s certainly how I feel and that probably speaks for the majority on this forum. However, I think the comments by FSU’s president are both intriguing and bodacious. “Aggressive” and “getting a lot of help”. If he can actually bust the ACC GOR, we’ll probably see a feeding frenzy in the southern half of the ACC.
LikeLike
There is so much here in this interview with ESPN’s Burke Magnus. Relationship with the Big Ten. Is the Big Ten trying to add another window for ESPN to buy? Why ESPN wants to keep the ACC together. SECN, ACCN, and LHN talk. Why ESPN likes rivalries over market size. Its worth your time.
LikeLike
Really good interview from the perspective of a key decision maker at ESPN.
Makes it pretty clear imo that ESPN isn’t likely to be on the table as far as this next 7 years goes for the Big Ten. Even if the Big Ten expands again…, which also makes me think the Big Ten really isn’t likely to expand in the near future.
Is an After Dark window with the #4 game (that has to involve a West coast school in all likelihood) that valuable? I don’t see that.
ESPN was really only interested in the primetime package that went to NBC but it would’ve had to be at the right price (ABC 3:30 is going to be SEC so that wasn’t available).
Just hard to see where the money to cover expansion would come from outside of the expanded CFP money. If ND isn’t coming, hard to see how you add 2 or 4 right now without just taking money from the 16 as of 2024-2030.
Good interview all around. Always important to remember that people are salesmen though; he wants to talk about the regionality of cfb because that plays into their ownership of the SEC and ACC, so he was talking about the Big Ten expansion as being counter to the notion of regionality and the Big Ten as a Midwest brand.
But then there’s CBS where McManus talks about the Big Ten having a national footprint that’s coast-to-coast from NYC to LA.
LikeLike
Yep, still in total denial. Hilarious.
LikeLike
Sure, tell me where $240+ million a year comes from for 4 more schools; it’s hard to make the numbers work for most schools right now to either the Big Ten or SEC.
ESPN offered the Pac-12 that amount for all 10 members.
There’s some expansion candidates out there, but unless somebody comes up with another pool of money: 10th conference game/tournament/semifinals/etc. it’s hard to make the numbers work…
LikeLike
Bob was doing some math last night in case you missed it.
LikeLike
The financial math works if ND comes. Or if FSU & Miami both come. But we’re discussing if the financial math works without ND (or FSU or Miami) coming.
LikeLike
Bob also said he does not see any combo of Pac-12 schools being accretive without Notre Dame. The question is how much lower their payout would be, and for how many years. (You don’t want to add a school that does not eventually get to a full share.)
LikeLike
But we’re discussing if the financial math works without ND (or FSU or Miami) coming.
LikeLike
If the B1G determines that adding a 10th conference game in place of an OOC buy game makes financial sense, that would be true for 16 teams as well. The money from a 10th game can’t be used as the justification to add 2 or 4 more teams.
LikeLike
ESPN was really only interested in the primetime package that went to NBC but it would’ve had to be at the right price (ABC 3:30 is going to be SEC so that wasn’t available).
From the numbers reported, it seems that the Big Ten’s last pitch to ESPN was practically a “f*** you” offer — an amount they knew no sane ESPN executive could have said yes to.
…he wants to talk about the regionality of cfb because that plays into their ownership of the SEC and ACC…
It will be really interesting in a few years to see if the SEC regrets having all of its eggs in one media company’s basket.
LikeLike
Yeah I mean they got 26-27 games for $190 million in the prior deal which was second choice in an annual draft (plenty of top weekly games) in the prior deal and were offered $380 million for 14 along with shared 2nd draft priority with CBS.
Still the fact that NBC paid $350 million for that exact package makes that much makes clear that they were on the outside the entire time. Big Ten couldn’t force them to raise the price 6 years ago when they paid $60 million less than FOX (who got CCG + 1st pick), but with CBS/NBC as bidders the possibility was there to really force the price up.
SEC will be fine because Amazon/Apple and digital will likely throw crazy money at streaming in the 2030s, so ESPN will have to keep up.
I’m pretty comfortable with where the Big Ten is; I don’t see the point of chasing expansion until the 2030s when everything is likely to get reorganized.
Of course the presidents might have their own opinions, but unless the money is there it’s hard to see how you expand again.
No AD is going to want expansion if they’re just splitting a slightly larger pie 20 ways instead of 16.
LikeLike
NBC paid less than the amount that ESPN declined, and NBC got streaming, which was not offered to ESPN.
It’s interesting to me that according to reports, ESPN lowballed the Pac. Does ESPN want to essentially be a regional sports channel when it comes to college sports?
ESPN’s initial low-ball offer does not preclude them raising it after they see what others are willing to pay.
LikeLike
You’re assuming that the details you heard about theB
Common sense tells me that the B10 wouldn’t offer ESPN less for more money.
LikeLike
I remain a little skeptical that ESPN was given the exact offer that was leaked. Maybe the Big Ten played some hardball with them and asked for more money than they asked from NBC for a similar deal seeing if they would “beat” the NBC offer on the table. But I would think the content must have been similar – if not the same structure (i.e. primetime games on ABC coupled with exclusive streaming on ESPN+ which would be the same as NBC’s deal essentially) then at least in terms of content (instead of streaming on Peacock, ESPN could have put those football/hoops games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU). I do think having guaranteed games on network TV was an unnegotiable demand though and one that ESPN may not have been able to meet given commitments to other conferences.
Was the source for the ESPN offer from Ross Dellenger of SI? His tweet on the subject says it was just for 13 games, but perhaps he was just focused on ABC games and used that as the headline, but there might have been more (at the very least hoops games, right?). Is there any article that discusses the negotiating in more detail?
LikeLike
You’re assuming the details you heard about the B10 ESPN offer were 100% accurate, I meant to say.
Comments messed up now.accurate.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to me that according to reports, ESPN lowballed the Pac. Does ESPN want to essentially be a regional sports channel when it comes to college sports? Albeit, the South is one of the if not the most important region for college football. Still if they spurn the Pac (or lead to its breakup), unless they get the B12 (and even then), in college sports, they’d be mostly a southern network.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to me that according to reports, ESPN lowballed the Pac.
IMO – ESPN knows the PAC is going to market. Any bid they make now will just be the floor for the rights.
LikeLike
If the OTA windows for the SEC, B1G, and ACC are set, who is ESPN really bidding against for P10 media rights? I don’t see anyone else backing up the truck of cash unless a streaming service wants to over pay.
LikeLike
@Bob
Do we know that FOX is totally out from the Pac-12? It seems like it since we haven’t heard any news about them bidding, but unless they intentionally want to cut their overall coverage of college football, keeping some of the Pac-12 or Big 12 rights in the next cycle would be needed to have afternoon or night games. Those conferences would also be much more willing to allow for FS2 games if they want inventory for that network.
It seems like they will ditch the Pac-12 (especially if they feel it will be torn apart sooner or later anyway) and try to keep some of the Big 12 rights. but the downside there is that the Pac-12 rights will be gone by the time the Big 12 comes up so they’d have no fallback.
On a related note, the FOX deal with the Big East goes through 2024-25.
LikeLike
If the OTA windows for the SEC, B1G, and ACC are set, who is ESPN really bidding against for P10 media rights?
@Bob – FOX, CBS, and NBC in theory should have room for PAC games. I wouldn’t be surprised if all three make some bid to keep ESPN’s bid “honest” even if they don’t really want them.
LikeLike
So, you know what, the B10 probably could make the financial math work if either ND comes or FSU and Miami both join. So _IF_ the B10 can convince FSU to join Miami in joining the B10 whenever, they could take the Pac4 (UW, UO, Stanford, Cal) with the Pac4 getting lesser payouts until FSU and Miami join (or until ND joins).
Or the B10 could tell the Pac4: “Hey, you’re in, but reduced payouts for you folks until either ND or FSU joins us with Miami, whenever/if that happens.”
LikeLike
I am sure there is some number that works mathematically, that is greater than the expected Pac-10 deal, but less than the current 16 will get. The gap is so vast, there is a lot to play with. The thing is, you don’t want permanent second-class citizens in your conference, and there is no guarantee that ND, FSU, or Miami will ever join.
If you were assembling a conference from scratch, and ignoring history, I bet you would not choose two Indiana schools while leaving Washington and Stanford out. The Big Ten is not going to kick out IU and Purdue (and I am not saying they should), but there would be serious equity issues if UW and Stanford were permanently in a lower tier. A buy-in period is appropriate, but it cannot be forever.
If the Pac schools aren’t worth it without ND, FSU, or Miami, maybe that means they just are not worth it at all.
LikeLike
Well, Miami is pretty likely to join the B10 eventually.
The big difficulty is convincing ND or FSU to join the B10.
The Domers seem like a very tough nut to crack, but it’s possible that you could sell the ‘Noles on a national schedule and national exposure (Bobby B did a lot with that).
And maybe that’s why the addition of the Pac4 hasn’t been announced/hasn’t happened yet. First step is getting FSU (or ND) + Miami onboard at some point (2030’s OK; just means the Pac4 will get lower distributions until then).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are we so certain the Big Ten wants into Florida with what is likely the 3rd brand after UF and FSU?
I’m not saying I necessarily disagree they will end up in the Big Ten. I just don’t know that’s a given, particularly if their performance continues to suffer until the 2030s when the ACC is more easily poached. How valuable will their brand be if it has wilted for 30 years at that point?
I also have to wonder, if we’re talking really long-term, is no one worried about the fact that Miami is going to become an increasingly undesirable location to live as sea levels rise? Is Miami, both the city and the university, a good long-term investment if sea level rise models are reasonably accurate?
LikeLike
Climate change and Miami flooding is a real concern, but not the other stuff.
The ‘Canes sit in the most fertile metro for football talent in the country:
View at Medium.com
No metro produces more NFL players. Not much larger LA or other football-crazed hotbeds like Atlanta, DFW, or Houston (NYC metro also places pretty well, likely due to having so many people).
And both of the other big FL brands sit on the other end of a long state. So imagine that IN+OH+PA was 1 state that produces as much talent added together as FL. Would we say that PSU wasn’t worth adding because OSU and ND are bigger brands? Or if that is too much of a stretch, say MI+OH is 1 state that produces as much talent together as FL. Would you reject MSU?
LikeLike
BTW, if the B10 adds Miami, the B10 will have 9/ metros that produce the most NFL beside(all s Atlanta, DFW, and Houston withi)n its footprint.
LikeLike
@Ross
Beyond what Richard stated, while Miami does only claim around 45% of Florida which is still 9-10 million as its base as opposed to UF/FSU which claim the whole state, this discussion is about brands/recruiting as much as it is about markets.
Miami’s ability to recruit at a top 10-20 level even when poorly coached as they have been over the past 20 years means that they have an easy path to relevance if they have a good coach.
In that respect the state of Florida is special because it can support 3 national championship contending schools although each has its peaks and valleys.
Ultimately brands and ratings derive from rankings and recruiting if a school can put it together.
That’s why the 3 most valuable schools in this discussion other than ND are FSU, Miami, and Clemson.
Best way to think about it is that Miami has been in the top 20 in terms of talent composite (blue chip metrics) over pretty much all of the last 2 decades despite not factoring into the national title discussion.
Their location and history and brand power in South Florida give them a unique strength.
UF and FSU being located in the northern third of the state is a huge boost to Miami.
Of course, the sea level stuff is a longterm concern, but I don’t think you worry about that too much.
LikeLike
z33k: “Of course, the sea level stuff is a longterm concern, but I don’t think you worry about that too much.”
Actually, Miami is the top school in the nation for Marine Biology, and that is exactly what is needed to reverse climate change. We can actually stop global warming and begin global cooling, even to the extent of creating another Ice Age.
The only viable solution to climate change is to sequester enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to return earth’s atmosphere to pre-industrial levels.
Phytoplankton in the ocean sequester about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. The result is that the ocean has become Mother Nature’s sink for carbon dioxide and indeed the oceans hold about 90% of all sequestered carbon. Stated another way, 10% of the sequestered carbon on earth is incorporated into the collective tissues of all land vegetation – forests, crops, grasses, jungles. The other 90% is in the ocean in the form of phytoplankton – live, dead, decayed, digested – that have sunken to the sea floor as sediment.
This “marine snow” has been continuously deposited onto the ocean floor for millions of years. Over time, this phytoplankton sediment decomposes into petroleum. Therefore any ‘fossil fuel carbon’ deposited onto the ocean floor would literally be putting that carbon back where it came from. The fossils in fossil fuels are actually ancient phytoplankton.
Clearly, the most natural and logical way to remove excess CO2 from our atmosphere is to nurture the growth of phytoplankton and increase the deposition of these diatoms into the ocean’s carbon sink. The limiting nutrient for phytoplankton in the ocean is iron. Iron fertilization has been studied and appears to be highly effective as a means generating vast blooms of phytoplankton, which then sink to the ocean floor. Those studies are summarized in the link below.
Within that article, one of the researchers is quoted as saying “Give me half a tanker of iron and I’ll give you an ice age.” He was only half-joking. By stimulating phytoplankton growth and its resultant increase in carbon dioxide dissolution into the ocean, we actually could sequester enough carbon to reverse global warming and generate global cooling. No other proposed technology or methodology even comes close.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/complicated-role-iron-ocean-health-and-climate-change-180973893/
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 10 is really concerned about 2150 AD.
LikeLike
Colin, that is pretty cool.
Bullet, I don’t know about you, man, but I aim to live to see that era (assuming the AI robots don’t wipe all us humans off the face of Earth first).
LikeLike
Richard,
Fear not in 2029 we will destroy Skynet and end the War of the Machines. LOL
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, that is pretty cool.”
Problem is that it won’t happen. The Republicans are in denial that climate change is happening and the Democrats are hellbent on an agenda (windmills, solar panels, EVs) that can’t possibly have a meaningful impact.
If we increase CO2 sequestration into the ocean by a mere one half of one percent, that will completely remove all of the greenhouse gases added to our atmosphere since the inception of the Industrial Revolution in 1750.
LikeLike
I definitely see the arguments in Miami’s favor, particularly when it comes to recruiting. I just wonder how appealing their brand will be come the 2030s if they have continued to struggle with on-the-field performances. If that happens, would the Big Ten rather just go all in on FSU, with Miami as a back-up?
As it relates to climate change, Miami is already experiencing the effects of sea level rise, with sunny-day flooding becoming increasingly common. We aren’t talking about 2150. The city is already being affected, and projections peg the rise around 1-1.5 feet by 2050. In many of our lifetimes, we will see climate change begin to take a significant toll on cities like Miami that are most vulnerable to climate change. Maybe this won’t affect expansion thinking. Maybe we’ll make major policy changes that prevent the worst of sea level rise. I’m not sure, but I think it is a question worth asking about Miami’s (both the school and the city) future.
LikeLike
This chat doesn’t know what the B1G presidents want but Miami is one of the most valuable programs not in the B1G/SEC. Excellent market/ football program, elite recruiting hotbed, and B1G caliber academics. I’ve expected Miami to prefer the SEC but I don’t see how the B1G could turn them down.
I’d make the same argument with North Carolina, where I expect the Tarheels to end up in the SEC but can’t see the B1G turning them down if they happen to prefer the B1G.
LikeLike
I definitely see the arguments in Miami’s favor, particularly when it comes to recruiting. I just wonder how appealing their brand will be come the 2030s if they have continued to struggle with on-the-field performances. If that happens, would the Big Ten rather just go all in on FSU, with Miami as a back-up?
Many of us have assumed that FSU would be more of a cultural fit with the SEC, which means it’s Miami or forget about the state. But Florida is big enough to justify taking two schools, if the Big Ten can get them.
The Big Ten presidents are less concerned about recent winning than fans are, assuming all of the other factors make sense. Rutgers was in the Big East/AAC for 23 seasons, and had a winning record in conference play in just 6 of them. Maryland was not much better: just one ACC conference championship in the preceding twenty years before joining the Big Ten.
UCLA has not won a PAC conference championship in over 20 years and has ended the season ranked in just three of the last 20 years.
LikeLike
Well, Venice is a perfectly fine city full of canals. Why can’t Miami be a Floridian Venice?
LikeLike
@Colin
Yeah, there’s different effects everywhere, but I don’t think it impacts anyone doing business in the short/medium term.
Just as an example: South Florida has done a lot to “hurricane proof” the area compared to how it was in the 80s-90s before Andrew.
Most homes and their roofs can withstand winds that reach well over 150 mph and these days so many homes have access to generators (whether fixed or mobile). Many of the electric lines have been built with much stronger cement/metal poles instead of wood. Traffic lights in large parts of south Florida have gone from being placed on wires to massive metal pole structures that can withstand hurricane force wind.
Power and fixed internet may go down for hours or a few days, but it can be back very quickly in most situations now. Way faster than just 20-30 years ago in most hurricanes.
Obviously rising sea levels is a different challenge entirely, but I don’t think folks should be writing off the coastal areas. There’s enough money there and will to try to keep those areas habitable.
I don’t view Miami’s situation as materially different than say worries about how a once in several centuries tsunami would impact Washington.
LikeLike
@Ross
The reality is that location will always be such a big factor for recruiting that it completely overwhelms recent history.
As Marc points out, that’s partially why UCLA, Maryland, and Rutgers were invited to the Big Ten. Anyone looking at those schools’ recent pasts would be like “uh is this really a football move?”
But then just look at recruiting (the most important factor here); Maryland’s been one of the top recruiters in the Big Ten over the past 8 years (often only below Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan).
UCLA (if it had an active top recruiting coach unlike Kelly who is more focused on transfers) would also be out-recruiting most of the Big Ten.
Ultimately, recruiting isn’t the only thing that matters; coaching is arguably just as important. See Miami or any other program in a talent rich area that’s done less with more over the past 20 years.
But schools in talent rich areas will virtually always have a huge edge over schools not in those areas. Miami can flip that switch at any time with a great coach; they can always be in the hunt even after being a non-factor in the ACC for most of the last 2 decades.
UCLA and Maryland don’t have that ability, but they have more access to blue chip recruits than 10 of the current Big Ten schools.
That’s also why a school like Miami is significantly more valuable than say Oregon. Oregon’s had far greater success on the field over the last 20 years, but if Oregon falls off, then getting back up is a lot harder than it is at Miami.
Even if Miami struggles another 10 years, their location can always bail them out; maybe a dozen schools can say that.
LikeLike
All of that is why, I think the Big Ten has to go all in on both FSU and Miami. Most of us here agree that FSU is almost certainly a lock to go to the SEC, but both schools have such huge value in realignment terms that it’s hard to find other schools close to them.
Those 2 are schools that you go for without question other than ND.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/08/23.aspx
SBJ confirms the Oregon – Big Ten meeting.
LikeLike
Some thoughts worth about $0.01:
No more expansion until 2028-2029 for the B1G.
Washington is highly preferred and would be the partner with ND if ND joined this cycle. Washington is a perfect fit as a B1G school and it’s academic and athletic advantages over Oregon are far more than enough for the B1G presidents to choose them over Oregon who has slightly better TV ratings and Nike. I think the outcome of these talks are spur Oregon to grow into a B1G profile if they wanna join. Otherwise, Oregon could end up like Nebraska and I’d bet the B1G presidents regret that invite as a 100yr decision. I bet the SEC regrets Mizzou with what they know now.
The B1G will go after Florida and Georgia before FSU or Miami.
I think Duke basketball actually makes them worth more than people think.
UVA is Cal east. No idea what the plan is there for either of those schools. If football didn’t exist UVA would be a great add.
I kind of don’t think the ACC loses any teams but ND to the B1G.
Idk, I don’t think there’s an end game or set conference size. The B1G will add schools that fit academically, athletically, and don’t dilute the payout (or close enough). That list is probably:
ND
Florida
Texas
UNC
(Gap)
FSU
Washington
Georgia
(Gap, all below reduce per school payout by at least a little)
Oregon
Duke
Miami
(Gap)
GT
UVA
Cal
Stanford
(Gap)
Colorado
Utah
Arizona or ASU
LikeLike
Nate Silver chimes in:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/
No surprises.
LikeLike
List does look like basically what everyone here has come to. A little something for everyone to chew on.
I suppose I’m a little surprised to see him so bullish on Oregon vs Miami or Stanford. Tends to go against the current zeitgeist of this board, but he’s also weighting the metrics differently than people here I think. No right or wrong, just interesting.
Was also a little surprised to see Utah rating right in line with Miami/Stanford. I believe that was one of the drums Colin’s been beating? Not sure I see it still, but I do think it vindicates his argument some.
LikeLike
manifesto: “I was also a little surprised to see Utah rating right in line with Miami/Stanford.”
And that’s with some suspicious metrics. He has FSU ranked ahead of Utah in academics. I challenge anyone to find an academic ranking that places FSU ahead of Utah.
LikeLike
Colin: ” I challenge anyone to find an academic ranking that places FSU ahead of Utah.”
He’s at least up front with where he pulled the data.
USNews National University Rankings: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
#55: FSU
#99: Utah
USNews Top Public Colleges & Universities: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
#19: FSU
#42: Utah
Not saying USNews rankings are worth a ton, and I think if he were trying to be a little more thorough (instead of pump out an article for 538) he’d use more than one data source. But he also didn’t pull those numbers out of his butt. I think it actually speaks really well of both FSU and Utah whose academics often get kind of derided here when compared to other schools we discuss.
LikeLike
WSJ academic rankings: Utah 133, FSU 173
LikeLike
Yeah, FSU and other schools in the largest states have benefited from the abundance of students that has forced down admission rates and made them extremely selective compared to their peers. That’s boosted them in the US News ratings.
The UCs, Texas/A&M, UF/FSU, UNC etc. have been the biggest beneficiaries of that.
Those schools are all becoming extremely selective to the point of comparing to private schools.
Higher scoring students/quality, lower admit rates, it all feeds into the “prestige” matrix.
FSU has shot up the US News rankings over the past decade or so as a result of those categories as well as student retention and graduation rates which have also shot up as the school became more selective.
LikeLike
Colin: “WSJ academic rankings: Utah 133, FSU 173”
Which isn’t the list he decided to use. I’m not saying USNWR > WSJ, I’m saying the list he did decide to use ranked FSU ahead of Utah and that’s how he landed where he did. Again, I think it speaks well to both schools in this case regardless of which list is being used. How the B10 considers their academics compared to either list I cannot say.
LikeLike
manifesto: “I’m not saying USNWR > WSJ . . .”
I am saying WSJ>USNWR. We all know the USNWR rankings have been and continue to be easily corrupted.
https://archive.nytimes.com/thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/clemson/
https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2009/how-clemson-went-from-38-to-22-in-us-news-ranking-of-universities/
LikeLike
Mostly agree with how the rankings shake out, but I think the thing we don’t know if how heavily to weight each of the criteria (both overall and within the three overarching criteria). Fit doesn’t really matter for ND, but does it matter for other schools if they do well on the other two criteria? I’m thinking it’s Market >= Sports > Fit, but there are potentially minimums in each of those criteria beneath which a school is unacceptable.
LikeLike
Nate’s model has barely any scoring for area population, which has obviously been a huge priority in B1G expansion. Oregon has a high “market” score, when our biggest concern about them is bringing a relatively small market. Washington has been seen around here as a possibly better fit due to market size, but Oregon tops them easily in that category in the model, 77 to 64. Clemson also scores really high for a small population state. His market category is mostly weighted to recent football success, which B1G hasn’t placed a high priority on.
LikeLike
Nate Silver is a number cruncher who seems to know very little about college football, even he could hear the games in his back yard as a kid.
Where subjective considerations are involved, he does not view things the way B1G presidents would. (Or for that matter, the way that most people on this board do).
That is why the academic “issues” at Oregon are not that important to him. It is also why he seems to discount the academics at Stanford and the fact that Stanford has finished in the top 2 in the overall college athletics for the past 25 years. Texas supplanted them the past two years.
He obviously is very seriously wishing that the B1G could return to 10, or at the most 12 schools and I think that to some extent comes through in his valuations.
LikeLike
Silver knows at least as much about sports as most of us, which is to say, he is a fan. He is better at statistics than most of us. What he is not, is someone who obsesses about college football all day, to the exclusion of all else.
I read a lot of strange stuff from purported experts, so this list strikes me as pretty reasonable. Sure, there are isolated points you could dispute, but we spend a lot of time disputing each other too.
LikeLike
One thing that Silver does not at all understand is the vision of Jim Delany and now Warren to have a national conference. That is what has allowed the B1G to get an $8 billion contract with three networks and potentially the best TV exposure ever for a conference. Without NY, LA, and Chicago, that never happens.
For example saying that he does not know a Rutgers fan in NY is the equivalent of Pauline Kael in NYC saying that she could not believe that Nixon won since she knew no one who voted for him in 1972, the year that Nixon won 49 states, including NY State. Based on that I would seriously question the political acumen of Pauline Kael.
Based on his personal opinion, he decides that there are more ND fans in NY than RU fans. The actual study by the NY Times is to the contrary by quite a bit, so his internalized error impacted his analysis. It is also inherently ridiculous since there are literally hundreds of thousand of RU alums in the area.
My point is not that he was mean to Rutgers, but rather that he made a rather important mistaken assumption regarding market sizes of teams. Market size and location has been a huge factor to the B1G, far ahead of football performance.
As everyone knows, RU, Maryland and UCLA are not on board due to football excellence.
I always feel that when I know that a so called expert is dramatically wrong on one issue about which I have the actual facts, I must question that expert on many other determinations.
When I used to see talking heads on TV bring on guests and I randomly knew more about the subject to be discussed than the talking head, that caused me to discount their treatment of other guests. The host knew who the guest would be and the subject, so how could they not know it cold? How could some random viewer with no claimed expertise of an issue know more than the host?
LikeLike
The problem is that he isn’t necessarily talking NYC DMA as much as he might be talking just NYC itself (which is pointless admittedly).
I think everyone knows there’s plenty of Rutgers fans/alums in New Jersey (at least several hundred thousand), and they all count as part of NYC DMA or Philly DMA which is why the school is so valuable for realignment purposes, the state belongs entirely to 2 of the most valuable DMAs in the country.
So yeah, I don’t think you have to really defend Rutgers’ value around here, but you don’t expect a statistical analysis to really be able to properly value something like that.
It’s why I say you have to add subjective color to an analysis like this.
LikeLike
My point is simply that if Silver is ignoring that, what else is flavoring his opinions. My comment was not a defense of Rutgers, but a doubt regarding Silver.
LikeLike
One more quicky. Having lived within 20 miles of mid town Manhattan for decades, I am very familiar with Nate Silver and his work, which is often local to the NY area and not even picked up in national media. I guess that I start with an opinion of Sliver and his work which might not be the case for many others.
LikeLike
I have read Silver’s work for years, dating back to when he had a hobbyist blog. While he is not always right — who is? — it’s nice to see an analytical approach in a field that far too often is ruled by emotions.
FTT in the past has done a numerical weighing of expansion candidates. Frank is always analytical, as Silver is; but he has been thinking deeply about these issues for years, which Silver has not. Frank’s list would be better. In lieu of that, I will take Silver’s analysis any day.
LikeLike
After Maryland approached the Big Ten, the they looked at UVA as a potential #14. Imagine UVA had said yes—which perhaps they now wish they had. Maryland and UVA would be in the Big Ten now, and Rutgers would be languishing in the AAC, with probably no realistic shot at an invite.
So let’s not kid ourselves. Rutgers wasn’t bad, but they weren’t the first girl Delany asked to the prom. In another very believable world, they are on the outside looking in.
If you had to rank all of the Big Ten schools as relegation candidates, leaving Rutgers aside, how did Silver do? I would say he got them about right. For instance, if they were starting over, the Big Ten would probably not want two Indiana schools with neither of them being Notre Dame. Probably the same in Illinois.
LikeLike
But the B1G is the creation of Purdue. They started the ball rolling. And Illinois is another charter member. The other Illinois school was U. Chicago.
You can’t rewrite history. The B1G was created by the schools you despise: 1896–Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and Purdue and Northwestern universities
PS. 10/21/18: Purdue 49, tOSU 20.
LikeLike
All of which is why you don’t add more schools that can’t carry their weight.
Adding Cal to a list like that seems foolish imo.
Best to keep the number of redundant teams at 2.
LikeLike
The B1G was created by the schools you despise: 1896–Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and Purdue and Northwestern universities.
I do not despise those schools at all, and I am not suggesting the Big Ten should (or would) remove them. All conferences have such schools. If the ACC were starting again, and ignoring history, it probably would not invite Wake Forest. The SEC would probably not invite Vanderbilt. And so on.
LikeLike
I think Marc’s point is fair in the sense that, the Big Ten and SEC are trying to be super efficient with respect to territorial coverage.
Obviously Northwestern and Vanderbilt as smaller privates would not be likely to be invited in the modern day though they serve a purpose in terms of location in a large city in the footprint.
Indiana/Purdue situation is sort of like Mississippi/Mississippi State in terms of redundancy.
Michigan/Michigan State is like Alabama/Auburn in that you’d want those pairs.
It’s not a big deal either way; the Big Ten and SEC have very little redundancies beyond those 2 situations. Given how efficient their footprints are, they can handle having an extra school in those markets.
And it’s why I think the Big Ten has to be careful not to overdo it on expansion. The value of Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/USC/etc. can’t be expanded forever.
At a certain point, you are just shrinking the size of the slices of the pie… that won’t make the big brands happy.
LikeLike
Bernie: “One thing that Silver does not at all understand is the vision of Jim Delany and now Warren to have a national conference.”
Another factor that Silver does not understand is NFL presence. Rather than looking at TV markets in terms of # of TV sets only, you should also understand that most of the eyeballs in NFL markets will not be looking at college football.
Huge NFL presence: Washington, Stanford, Cal, Miami, GT, Arizona St
Weak NFL presence: Colorado, FSU, UNC, UVA
Zero NFL presence: Utah, Oregon
LikeLike
Colorado?
The Broncos are right there and my understanding is they have a strong fanbase.
And the Cardinals actually have a poor fanbase.
https://franchisesports.co.uk/nfl-fans-ranked-best-worst-loudest-smallest-fanbases/#:~:text=1.-,Packers,the%20most%20expensive%20ticket%20prices.
LikeLike
I can understand any Rutgers fan being upset about Nate Silver’s rating. With a composite of 42 points Rutgers is tied with West Virginia! Looking at the B10 composites (wish he had provided the detail of the others) it is easy to tell why, and it is not the low market ranking. Rutgers athletics performance stinks. Rutgers got 8 points while even NW and Purdue got 30. If Rutgers athletic performance was as good as Minnesota it would have 53 points and be tied with Miami and Stanford in this B10 desirability scoring.
The market rating only gives 20% to the static market size. The rest was how well the school was doing: 20% athletic revenue, 30% Football TV Viewers, and 30% internet search. Rutgers is last in the B10 for athletic revenue (from the link) and TV viewers. Rutgers got a 9 or 10 for the static market (SMU got 9 for Dallas and they might be 4th in that market), There is an argument to be made that the static market should have a higher weight. The TV and search scores are highly correlated except for basketball schools (much higher) and a few like Stanford that fell way off so much that it looks like a data error (not picking up right term for school like happened to USC). However, this was applied evenly. NW only got a 31 in the Chicago market. Six of the B10 schools got a market score of 43 or lower including Rutgers at 38. USC got 74 while UCLA got 51 in the LA market, the difference being the weight given to revenue and ratings. Like USC, if Rutger’s on field performance increased, ratings would increase, as would the market score.
I do not believe Delany sold the invite as Rutger’s being a B10 doormat at NYC’ entrance. More likely it was sold based on the size of the market and the expectation that Rutger’s would be able to at least improve to the 3rd quartile with B10 level revenue. West Virginia’s rating is due to structural issues that cannot be changed (small school in small state with small market, academics cannot be improved while serving the mission of public school, etc.). If the Rutger’s athletic department could get its act together Rutger’s would become a real asset to the conference. It does not need to get to the Oregon or Clemson level, but those schools show what is possible over a few years.
LikeLike
He got his start with sports statistics. So he knows sports. I think he does, as mentioned above, whiff on his market metrics. And a lot of his discretionary 1 to 10 ranking seems a little flaky. I’ve always found his analyses to lack a cognizance of his own biases and a huge certainty of his own correctness. So the more arbitrary his analytics (his 1 to 10 ratings), the more suspect anything he comes up with.
LikeLike
Silver’s list is fine. It shakes out similarly to how many of us would gauge the value of schools in realignment.
The main difference is that the people around here really dig into the weeds on a lot of these issues while he’s approaching it from a brute force statistical approach and trying to grade the schools through a standardized set of metrics.
That approach works fine overall.
Oregon’s an outlier because it’s probably the lowest ranked AAU and it lacks some departments that most other universities have so its research expenditures are so low. That’s the contradiction.
Academically I think most schools that we talk about could be argued as fitting the Big Ten if we use Nebraska as a basic standard: $300+ million in research expenditures, moderate sized graduate programs.
Oregon is an outlier academically by any standard once you move past the AAU (which may be stripped from them down the road).
The schools on his list are mostly the usual suspects: ND, UNC, Oregon, FSU, Washington, Clemson, Utah, Miami, Stanford, Cal.
LikeLike
z33k: “The main difference is that the people around here really dig into the weeds on a lot of these issues while he’s approaching it from a brute force statistical approach and trying to grade the schools through a standardized set of metrics.”
Right. Difference here is he’s trying to pump out an article for his site and move on, whereas people here are a little more dedicated overall on the topic. That said, being too far in the weeds may not necessarily guarantee the correct answer either.
I don’t have an issue with his list. Seems to me Bernie is correct — his list doesn’t weigh academics as heavily, and likely weighs football performance a little heavier, than most here assume. That’s fine. Ultimately it’s his opinion. It’s still more informed than the average “let’s add Alabama, Clemson, and Texas!” fan forum post, and does attempt to follow Frank’s mantra of thinking holistically.
LikeLike
Yeah exactly, I find reading a piece like his useful for the exact reasons you mention.
It’s an outsider’s view of the forest whereas we spend a lot of time sifting through trees.
Sometimes, it is easy for us to lose sight of the forest around here, and he does have a solid view of what realignment issues look like regardless of what we think of the balancing of the details.
LikeLike
One interesting observation from Silver’s data is how the bar has been raised for B1G additions. The previous B1G additions of MD+RU scored 96 and USC+UCLA scored 144. The general thinking is future additions will likely be in pairs (with ND as an exception). Could the B1G add WA or UNC alone, sure, but that seems unlikely. Here are the scores for possible paired additions:
ND+WA 138
WA+OR 132
ND+STAN 126
WA+STAN 118
STAN+CAL 105
ND+UNC 141
ND+FSU 138
ND+MIA 126
FSU+MIA 118
UNC+UVA 117
UNC+DUKE 116
LikeLike
Yeah that’s something that I think most of us realized intuitively after the Texas/OU and USC/UCLA shifts but seeing it quantitatively provides a nice framing.
Without ND’s involvement, you’re really crunching the numbers tightly.
FSU, Miami, and Clemson arguably have the most “football TV value” probably followed by Oregon.
Washington is the perfect mix out west across all factors. Stanford’s ND ties and location matter.
But everything comes down to finances, and the numbers are tight given where the Big Ten and SEC are.
Not too many expansion scenarios are additive at this point.
LikeLike
Zeek, I think you’re dead-on. If you rule out Clemson because of academics (and because orange southern UNL-with-a-recruiting-ground would much prefer the SEC), you really need either ND or FSU (preferably both) to sign on with Miami to join the B10 to make the addition of the West Coast 4 financially feasible to the B10 in the long run.
Mind you, you could ask the West Coast 4 to take 2/3rds or 75% distributions for 12 years (buy-in period or whatever) until the ACC collapses IF ND/FSU joins the B10 with Miami at that point, but they do have to join eventually or else you have permanently unequal members.
LikeLike
@Richard
Yeah I agree.
Unless everyone is taking big permanent pay cuts, hard to see how the Big Ten adds 4 West Coast teams.
The money just isn’t there right now unless the math changes.
I just see Stanford and Washington as +1s on bigger moves involving ACC teams at this point.
Or maybe add them in 2030 with a 6 year buy in… and next contract ends in 2036 to line up with ACC contract.
So the buy in would end when ACC teams join and boost the contract.
LikeLike
Well, the main impetus for adding UMD+RU (or UMD+UVa, which was the original plan) was to tie PSU to the B10/weaken the ACC. Yes there were other objectives (Eastern markets for both football and OOS student recruiting + major media markets + tons of B10 grads), but as a defensive move in part, the bar would be set pretty low.
I also quibble with Silver’s weights and metrics, but anyway, 2 UNL’s is 114. That is probably a more proper baseline (UNL+Mizzou=104).
And what tells me that the weights aren’t quite right is that these should lead the pack in terms of the pairs the B10 would most want:
ND+FSU
ND+Miami
FSU+Miami
ND+Stanford
ND+UW
LikeLike
Richard: “2 UNL’s is 114. That is probably a more proper baseline (UNL+Mizzou=104).”
There’s an argument to be made it probably should be higher (like UNL+UCLA for 126), if only because USC+UCLA changed the realignment math so much. But I agree that using UMD+RU as a baseline isn’t going to be good enough.
It really shows how much ND is likely the lynchpin to most future expansion. While people are trying to map out other scenarios where the math for new teams doesn’t take money away from existing teams, just to get to 20/22/24/whatever, the issue is that B10 presidents likely aren’t going to be interested in taking new teams just to tread water.
The point has always been that new teams bring more money for everyone, and enough to justify the headaches of becoming a larger conference. The interesting thing with Silver’s analysis (and this blog — lots of good debate in this thread) is just how few teams — and not only individual teams but combinations of teams — would actually accomplish that.
It seems to be essentially ND+Tier2 team or maybe 2xTier2 and that’s about it. After that it’s us quibbling on whether some Tier3’s are actually Tier2’s, but not a ton of debate on if any combination of 2xTier3 or lower would work. Which leaves… not a ton of teams to be sure.
LikeLike
At the very least Silver’s data suggests it makes sense for the B1G to wait for now, unless Notre Dame wants to join. I’d be very curious to see a similar analysis from an SEC-perspective. How would the scores for FSU, MIA, UNC, Clemson, etc. match up? Are they more valuable to the B1G or to the SEC?
LikeLike
I’d be very curious to see a similar analysis from an SEC-perspective. How would the scores for FSU, MIA, UNC, Clemson, etc. match up? Are they more valuable to the B1G or to the SEC?
You’ve got to think FSU and Miami are less important to the SEC than to the Big Ten, because they already have the #1 program in the state. Still, Florida is a big enough state to justify two members, so if FSU comes calling, I have to think they get in.
But I don’t see the SEC adding a third program in Florida, so if they get FSU, Miami will be a free agent. Clemson is the next best football program in the Southeast that they do not already have, so I figure they’re in as well.
Once you get into North Carolina and Virginia, it is a question of how much the SEC values entering markets where the quality of the football is below their standard, and there is no single school in either state that unequivocally delivers those markets.
The SEC does not seem to have aspirations to be a coast-to-coast conference, so there is no point talking about schools like Colorado, Arizona, and so on.
LikeLike
Yeah, an SEC list is pretty boring:
It’s literally just FSU, Clemson, UNC, and then selecting a 4th out of UVa, Miami, Duke.
If They don’t get UNC/UVA, maybe they consider NC State/Va Tech.
Beyond that, it’s a pretty obvious path to 20 given that most of us assume FSU/Clemson are extremely likely to be in the SEC in 2036.
And for the reason Marc gives, Miami seems likely to end up in the Big Ten as the best football school available other than ND along with location and academic fit.
LikeLike
Stanford, Duke and Vanderbilt were the only schools scored at 40 points (the max) in academics, compared to 25 for Oregon. All 3 got private schools got dinged in Fit for being small private schools that do not look like the large public flagship schools in the B10 (10 out of a maximum of 40, while Oregon got 26). In Athletics Standford was also given the max points for titles (20).
The analysis did not rate how good an AAU membership is, you either have it or you do not. I am in Frank’s camp on Oregon’s AAU status: Since Oregon lines up with almost all AAU political stands it is in no immediate danger of being booted. However, the B10 presidents may be more critical than the AAU.
LikeLike
I am in Frank’s camp on Oregon’s AAU status: Since Oregon lines up with almost all AAU political stands it is in no immediate danger of being booted. However, the B10 presidents may be more critical than the AAU.
They might be less critical. Warren said flat-out that AAU membership is not necessary. Now, that could have been an exception for Notre Dame only, but we really don’t know. When the B1G added Nebraska, they knew its AAU membership was hanging by a thread. There is an academic floor below which they won’t go, but I don’t think they are yoked to the AAU metrics.
LikeLike
Silver’s list is a useful way to quantify a lot of the values that we apply to schools in realignment. Is it perfect? Of course not, no 2 schools are alike by any sort of metrics such as market size/demographics, brand, prior athletics history, academics.
Only really enrollment and whether a school has AAU are objectively quantifiable scores, but even AAU ties into academics which is subjective as our discussions on Oregon illustrate.
Ultimately, you have to add subjective color to any analysis. Schools like FSU and Miami punch above their weight when looked at subjectively. Their location/market is so much more valuable real estate than any other at issue in this discussion (South California/Texas being off the table), and it’s hard to come up with an objective numerical weight that could show that.
When you ask a question like “If X school is down for 20 years, what’s its value to a conference?”, that’s where schools like FSU and Miami excel.
Silver makes a lot of good points, especially where he does discuss how markets (and the schools that actually deliver them) are likely the most important single metric, and how schools like Cal and Stanford underperform in that area despite being in SF. And he does ask the question of whether the Big Ten would really want 2 schools there.
Overall, it’s a good analysis from another set of eyes. We’ve all spent years looking at the minutiae of realignment that it is nice to get an outsider’s view on the issues at stake.
LikeLike
Manifesto, I agree with you (and Zeek) that there aren’t that many options available to the B10 that even keep per capita payouts the same. Where I disagree is that I believe that if the per capita payouts could be kept the same, the B10 still would expand for demography and power reasons (if the SEC gobbles up more potential national title contenders, the B10 will too).
So say the SEC grabs FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVa (which wouldn’t actually enhance per capita payout but does add national title contenders, academic prestige, basketball prowess, and capture the entire Confederacy).
Would the B10 sit at 16? I doubt it. Yet even with Miami + UO + UW + Stanford + Cal can’t pay for themselves (or GTech as a partner for Miami, who, like the Bay Area schools, would be a good/great fit in all aspects besides financially). The 5 non-Miami schools could take haircuts (ahem, buy-ins), but not forever.
And ND may be stubborn enough to cling to their religion of “independence” forever.
What to do? Make ND an offer they can’t refuse. Let them call themselves independent but offer them something akin to the ACC deal. Except 8 games vs. B10 teams (that actually isn’t that different from their current ACC deal as ND already plays USC and Stanford annually as well as 1-2 B10 teams a year).
2 games vs USC and Stanford
2 games vs 2 of 4 traditional rivals (UMich, MSU, Miami, and PSU (yes, I know that PU is more of a traditional rival than either Miami or PSU, but ND playing PSU/Miami means more money and ND did play Miami almost every year in the ’70’s and ’80’s and PSU every year in the ’80’s).
4 games vs. the other 16 B10 teams (so once every 4 years).
I’m actually hoping ND gets $75mm for their home TV package because that would mean an alliance with ND would be worth almost $75mm. That + all the other stuff (more playoff money from the Pac being destroyed, an After Dark package, maybe a Friday night package, money from CFP credits) could be enough to pay for the addition of the 6 new schools.
And the B10 would be a truly national conference with members in almost all of the top NFL-producing metros in the country (9 of 11, just not Houston and DFW).
LikeLike
Oh, and there would be more playoff money from the ACC oh, andestroyed too. Even if the B12 picks up the 4 Corners schools and some combo of Duke, Louisville, VTech, ,CSU, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and the SEC and B10 treat the new B12 as an equal power conference, the B10 (and SEC) would get 1/3rd of the power conference CFP pie instead of 1/5th. N
there woold be more playoff money from the ACC being d
LikeLike
Comments. Messed up.
LikeLike
Canzano today:
Bob Thompson, the former Fox Sports Networks president, has done hundreds of deals over the years. He’s the expert.
At Canzano’s request, Thompson created a formula to measure market size, television households, football brand, win percentage, Olympic sports, fan support, and men’s basketball impact.
My edit of the table: He ranked UW #1 with 36 “points”, Oregon #2 w/ 34, Stanford #3 with 30. ASU was #4 with 25 points, then Utah with 22, and Cal with 20. Notably, Colorado was next to last with just 15 points.
Thompson estimated a five-year media rights contract with an average annual payout of $350 million. It includes an industry-standard four-percent annual increase and assumes the conference will be able to monetize the Pac-12 Networks. The average payout in the first year: $32.4 million per school.
Can any of us really blame USC and UCLA for chasing what we now know will be a $72 million-a-year media rights payout in the Big Ten? A USC athletic department staff member told me, “Every AD in the Pac-12 would’ve made this move if they’re honest with you,” and also said that the Pac-12 never asked the Trojans and Bruins how they felt about the conference’s equal-revenue sharing philosophy. “Nobody asked, ‘Are you OK with it? Would we like to see something different next contract?’ Not one conversation with LA schools, that was a mistake,” the source said.
Thompson provided a tiered estimate for the remaining 10 members of the conference. If the Pac-12 decides to explore unequal media-rights revenue sharing in this cycle, he sees the top 3 taking $38.7m/year, the middle 3 $32.3m/year, and the bottom 4 $27.7m/year.
I’m told the conference members are discussing whether Pac-12 schools that earn postseason windfalls (College Football Playoff, NCAA Tournament, bowl games, etc.) should get to keep a larger share of those payouts. The conference members currently pool the postseason money and share equally. I think that’s going to change.
But — would some of the Pac-12 schools also demand more media-rights money?
It’s not something the Ducks — or anyone else — have been advocating for in open sessions, per a well-placed Pac-12 source.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson is definitely the man who knows and understands a lot. Interesting analysis, but it is predicated on a $350 million per year average payout.
Will anyone put up that much money?
Thompson is almost certainly correct that if the PAC did get the $350 and split it that way, it would give the PAC a good reason to stick together, absent B1G offers.
Arizona, CO, and Wash State and OR State would be at about $27.7 million per year, which is probably around the most that the Big 12 would give them.
LikeLike
I’m unimpressed with Nate Silver’s 538 Blog analysis. Were it a school project I’d give it an initial C grade and send it back for major revisions.
Simplistic, sloppy, and too inconsistent. For example, using US News (LOL) with heavy weighting for his academic rankings with no consideration of a school’s research (which is probably a much bigger factor in ruling out potential schools.) Baylor scored just a 2 out of 10 for basketball? Holy hell, a natty 2 years ago and years of sustained success in what has become arguably the toughest basketball conference. (No, I don’t think Baylor is a serious candidate for the B1G, but it’s a clear example of poorly thought out subjective decisions.)
Several other examples that I won’t waste time writing about. Like many of the attempts to quantify and rank schools’ tv ratings, it’s a start and flawed but can provide some squinty level insight. Unfortunately the usual message board nitwit simpletons will latch onto it as gospel to argue whatever biased point they’re trying to sell.
I wish Silver had spent a bit more time carefully refining it before publishing.
Also, goodness gracious, there’s over 3000 posts. Carpal Tunnel scrolling attractive nuisance alert. Start a new thread before people get hurt. Has Frank not seen the end of The Jerk? Carl Reiner is about to reveal jacked up fingers at a press conference….
LikeLike
Forgot to mention, but there’s an interesting showdown brewing between Brett McMurphy’s reporting and Pete Thamel’s. McMurphy is pretty much all in on the B1G adding 2 to 4 more from the Pac within the next year, to join at the same time as USC and UCLA. Pretty clear that at least his primary source is affiliated with the B1G. and says their basic story has been consistent for a month. He did several interviews in the last week stating this, from Finebaum to local radio shows.
Meanwhile, Thamel was on the College Gameday podcast a day or so ago and said it’s hard for him to see the B1G taking any more Pac schools because the numbers don’t work and it would end up reducing the payout for all the existing schools. He also said that USC doesn’t want any more Pac schools added, that it could impact their recruiting and their other perceived advantages. Several others have reported the same about USC since the move story first broke. I don’t think Thamel addressed the possibility of Pac additions joining with reduced initial payouts (such as was the case with Rutgers and Maryland in regards to their BTNet buy in.)
One thing that gives me pause about McMurphy was his insistence this last week that B1G prez Warren had said in that cable interview (HBO?) that the B1G would go to 20. But what actually happened was that the interviewer just asked, “Could you foresee the B1G expanding to 20?” Warren replied, “I could.” (May be slightly paraphrased, but the gist is legit.)
That’s not a commitment to 20, it’s just saying a hypothetical is possible. It irks me that McMurphy has continued to repeat his mantra that Warren said they’re going to 20, even when corrected on it by persons like Bob Thompson (former Fox Sports president.) Maybe McMurphy has heard 20 is the target off the record, but he needs to make clear if that’s the case. Right now I’m more skeptical of his reporting than before because of this.
LikeLike
I agree with you on McMurphy’s reporting.
Maybe somebody at the Big Ten office is telling him: “Warren is pushing for those 4 out West” or some AD told him that.
But I’m not sure how it happens if the money isn’t there. Only ND is assumed to come with a big immediate payday that could pay for other schools.
Thamel is right that the money doesn’t look like it works right now so how can the Big Ten expand.
Trying to add more West Coast teams in 2030 makes more sense than now.
LikeLike
McMurphy said someone in the Big 10 told him 20 and reported that before Warren’s comments. And it seems he got confirmation from someone after the comments. And Thamel is right that they don’t pay for themselves. But the Big 10 may be looking at this strategically with long term and less tangible benefits. I’m pretty sure Rutgers was added for the connections to Big 10 alumni as much or more than its impact on the BTN.
LikeLike
And without bowl and CFP implications, the estimates are roughly $120 million short of paying for themselves. That’s $6 million a year per school. If increased share of CFP, advertising, sponsorships and other revenues cut that in half, then you are only talking $3 million out of over $70 million. And being in the Bay Area frequently may mean the schools get more donations from alumni.
20 is what the reporting is indicating. Now maybe that 20 is when ND comes, but I suspect we will see at least 2 more in the next year.
LikeLike
The thing is that it would have been easy to get the rest of the money (other than the $120 million short let’s say) if the deals hadn’t been signed with 16.
Going back to FOX, CBS, and NBC and needing more money from them is a factor, especially if they’re only offering good faith negotiations on other additions.
Look at the SEC-CBS situation; CBS didn’t add money when A&M was added; they were just like “well that’s nice, doesn’t change our game of the week deal”, so the SEC is getting the same money for 14 that they were getting for 12.
LikeLike
Zeek, I agree.
I don’t see the current rights-holders paying much more for their current time slots and picks without ND (either addition as a full member or alliance like the current ND-ACC deal leading to more attractive games).
The money would have to come from monetizing the After Dark slot with West Coast additions and extra playoff money from destroying the Pac (and performance-based payouts).
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Rutgers was added for the connections to Big 10 alumni as much or more than its impact on the BTN.
Rutgers was added because Maryland was. They would not expand to odd numbers, so it was a question of taking both or neither. Once UVA turned them down, there was no other 14th school that made sense.
I don’t think the financial projections have ever been made public, but Rutgers ultimately more-than-paid for itself without counting other intangibles. I don’t know if that was predicted all along, or if they just got lucky.
LikeLike
I give Jim Delany credit for being a genius and seeing value from Rutgers where others only saw won loss records.
LikeLike
I am not suggesting it’ll happen, but maybe the Big Ten is thinking of revenue more broadly, such as post-season revenue or streamers who will over-pay. We know Apple and Amazon were interested, but didn’t make the final cut. I wonder how much they offered?
McMurphy is pretty much all in on the B1G adding 2 to 4 more from the Pac within the next year, to join at the same time as USC and UCLA.
I thought the Pac-12 had a 2-year notification requirement. That was why the USC/UCLA announcement was on June 30, the last possible day they could give notice in time to join for the 2024 football season.
LikeLike
The 2 year notification is correct, but that was to exit with no financial penalties.
I’d imagine that anybody that tries to leave in less than 2 years would pay some sort of financial penalties/exit fee.
Hard to speculate what that would look like but theoretically a school could leave for the Big Ten at the same time as USC/UCLA; they would likely have to deal with a lawsuit and then financial settlement.
LikeLike
Longhorn: “One thing that gives me pause about McMurphy was his insistence this last week that B1G prez Warren had said in that cable interview (HBO?) that the B1G would go to 20.”
McMurphy, imo, has the issue of being good enough at journalism to smell a story but not good enough to be open minded about other angles. He gets tunnel vision, so the more he doubles down the less I trust it.
LikeLike
LOL, Gundy stirred it up today after meeting with new B12 commish Yormark:
“I don’t think it’s any secret. He agrees with all of us. He thinks conference realignment is just getting started. It’s just starting now…(Yormark) knows so much about the schools in this league. And he knows so much about the PAC-12 schools just because of what’s happened. I was shocked. He didn’t say this, but if anything happens in conference realignment it would be this league (Big 12) going in this direction (points). That’s west. I don’t know any of us, maybe him subconsciously, thinks it’s going to go in this direction (points east). That’s what I got out of it. He knows details of every school in that league (PAC-12). I was shocked.”
LikeLike
I still feel reasonably confident that the only time further expansion makes sense for the Big Ten without ND is around 2030 or 2036. I fully expect the next TV contract to end in 2036 so that everything is lined up to easily take schools from the ACC and set up new 2036- TV deals with new ACC members.
If the Big Ten is serious about building a Western wing, then 2030 could make sense with a 6 year buy in…
That would line the Big Ten up to be at 2036 with the new Western members having completed buy ins; the reason for doing that is because every ACC member will likely need $160-200 million forwarded to them due to the exit fee of 3 years of distributions withheld:
The Big Ten and SEC needing to borrow and forward $160-200 million for each ACC school is not something to underestimate; it’s a reason why I don’t see either conference adding more than 4 ACC schools, and even then maybe 2 makes sense if the money can’t justify going above that in terms of growing the slices of the distribution pie.
It’s why the focus has to be on the schools that bring the most market/TV value like FSU, Miami, Clemson, and UNC.
If the Big Ten only gets Miami out of that group, then I think the Big Ten may only take another ACC school (UVa or Va Tech) to pair up with them or may just go West for partners like Washington/Stanford and maybe Oregon which will likely still have no exit fee.
It’s getting really hard to see how schools like Georgia Tech work in 2036 even if the Big Ten presidents may have added them in 2012. The numbers no longer work easily with the expected ACC exit fee in the mid-2030s and the need for each school to justify $100 million in annual Big Ten distributions.
If a school doesn’t bring some kind of region/territory as part of its base, it’s hard to justify paying for unless it’s coming with a much bigger brand. Ga Tech probably only comes to the Big Ten if FSU does; same applies to Duke and UNC. Even then the numbers are tight.
LikeLike
Maybe a middle group of ACC schools tell the others, “We are not signing the next grant of rights unless the exit fee is eliminated drastically reduced.” This frees them up to look at other conferences in the 2040s, without being on the hook for $160–200mm apiece.
LikeLike
Problem is just that the strongest schools and weakest schools have no incentive for that (as a corollary to what you point out):
Strongest schools will get offers regardless of the exit fee. Big Ten and SEC will absolutely be willing to cover the exit fee (in the form of forwarded distributions) for up to 4-6 of the ACC schools.
And then the schools like Boston College/WF/Pitt/Syracuse and rest that will be left behind will want every single dollar of those exit fees collected to keep them whole as long as possible.
LikeLike
I think that Pitt fits perfectly into the Big 12 with Louisville. I agree that the other three probably have nowhere to go, unless they can put together a conference of homeless schools somewhere above the G5, but not quite P?. GaTech would also be part of that group, which is a shame for such a good school in Atlanta.
LikeLike
Problem is just that the strongest schools and weakest schools have no incentive for that (as a corollary to what you point out)
The only reason it works is because a grant of rights has to be unanimous. Syracuse clearly has zero incentive to eliminate the exit fee. FSU would rather not pay it, but can afford to because they are so valuable. I am thinking of the “middling” schools that would probably want to consider moving if the exit fee were not so steep.
LikeLike
This is true.
In some sense I guess that schools like BC, WF, and Syracuse might want to handcuff themselves to Va Tech, NC State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Ga Tech to try to position the ACC as the clear #3 that poaches WV/Cincy/OkSU/TTech/Houston/UCF to try to stay the clear #3.
Whether that’s possible is a good question, at some point the best of the rest will want to combine and some group of leftovers will emerge a winner.
Either the Iowa State/Kstate/Baylor group wins out or the BC/Syracuse/WF group wins out.
LikeLike
I just don’t see much of the middle group wanting to dissolve the ACC unless the B12 absolutely promises them a home. And even then, they may not (or may not be able to do so; problem is that Wake for sure will fall out of a power conference if the ACC is gone).
LikeLike
I just don’t see much of the middle group wanting to dissolve the ACC unless the B12 absolutely promises them a home.
It’s not so much that they want to dissolve the ACC. What they want is the freedom to move. Exit fees and GORs are pretty recent developments — conferences formerly did not have them.
Given that the GOR needs to be unanimous, there would be significant leverage if a a couple of schools say, “We are signing, but only on condition that it has to be less costly to leave.”
LikeLike
Wait, you’re talking about the next grant of rights? The top teams in the ACC will be picked off by the time the current GOR expires.king
LikeLike
Wait, you’re talking about the next grant of rights? The top teams in the ACC will be picked off by the time the current GOR expires.
Yes, I am playing out the scenario that the top teams leave, but there is still a conference that is worth something. The remainders would be an approximation of what the Big East used to be, with all of its members hoping to get called up to the next level. I am speculating that a few of them would insist on making it easier to leave, which the lower end of that group would have no choice but to accept because where else can they go?
LikeLike
All ACC teams have already signed GOR through 2036 so the GOR vs. lower exit fee deal would not see anyone leave before about 2042. A better strategy may be to start counting the teams with a landing spot (SEC, B10, B12) and have them dissolve the conference at the end of the current GOR. Either B10 or SEC might be interested in some combination of UNC, NCSU, VA, VT, Clemson, FSU, and Miami. The B12 would take any of those left and might also be interested in Louisville and Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
I know this has been discussed a bit above, but in Silver´s analysis, and other analyses on expansion, isnt the exclusive west coast window underrated in the discussion? Big12 fans like to complain that the only reason Pac12 outdraws the Big12 is because they have an exclusive window. Maybe true, but that makes them more valuable!
If the Big10 added 2-4 more west coast schools, that completely eliminates any other conference from that window. A few weeks of Friday night 7/10 pm double headers, a weekly 9-10pm slot, etc. That has significant value, and the Big10 has the chance to really lock it down forever.
Related, the Big10 already has 3 other exclusive windows. Does adding more teams in those same windows really add a ton more value? Yes it will increase the quality of the Tier 1 games, but really its just pushing better games to the BTN, Peacock, FS1, etc. Seems to me there is real strategic value in adding a new window (and a tier 2 window on say FS1 at 10pm).
To pick a few schools, wouldnt Stanford and Cal have more financial value than say a Virginia/Virgina Tech/Georgia Tech (and maybe even a UNC) solely for this reason?
LikeLike
Also going to remind everyone here that CBS flatly said no to the SEC to increasing their $55 million average deal for SEC on CBS when the SEC added Texas A&M/Missouri.
The only school that CBS and NBC are obligated to pay more for is ND. FOX may pay more for Washington/Oregon/Stanford +1 because their relationship with the Big Ten covers FOX/FS1/BTN and they may get more content along with not rocking the boat).
But CBS is going to be paying $350 million per year as is NBC; that’s a huge investment for those 2 in CFB on a scale that they’ve never had to do before for CFB.
CBS and NBC entire histories in CFB have pretty much been cheap deals; this is the first time they’re really paying market rates due to fortuitous timing on previous deals (SEC signed CBS deal during Great Recession, NBC signed long undermarket deals with NBC regularly for the exposure).
So yeah, let’s not just assume that it’ll be easy to get money for Washington, Oregon, Stanford + 1 or any combination.
ESPN also can argue that they can offer the Big 12 or Pac-12 remnants a cheap deal for the later window games (whichever conference has the Corner 4/SDSU/Fresno State), so why should they pay a premium to the Big Ten for the exclusive window?
I’m just going to urge caution here because it’s not easy to get money out of these companies, especially after 3 of them just signed their biggest CFB deals by far.
LikeLike
(Not meant to be attached to jb’s post above).
LikeLike
You pay extra money for more games or clearly better games. SEC adding A&M and Mizzou really failed to alter the equation for CBS’ first pick for game of the week. So, I don’t fault CBS. ESPN ended up with more and higher-quality inventory, so of course they would pay more.
As it relates to further BiG expansion to the west, there would be no reason for NBC and CBS to pay more unless they add more inventory. But the value of the 4th BiG game each week would increase significantly due to the greater number of games overall plus the quality of teams added (except for Cal) would often be worthy of a higher pick than #4. As should be obvious by now, there really can be synergy when it comes to conference expansion.
The issue becomes the exclusivity clause. NBC apparently can’t fill the Notre Dame window with BiG games when ND is not home. Can Peacock? What about Apple or Amazon??
LikeLike
Yeah you’d have to be able to sell a 4th window to make it work; the question is just what’s the value of that?
LikeLike
Who will pay for that 4th window? If the B10 adds two more PAC schools ESPN could strike a deal with the B12. The B12 should be able to add whoever they want that is left. ESPN is likely to get good ratings vs. a streaming service. Is Fox going to pay more for inventory it already has? On the podcast ESPN exec made it clear that the B10 never offered ESPN what they wanted to buy. Also said cost was too high vs alternative programming. Better to spend the money on PAC and B12 since they have a lot of slots to fill 3 windows on ABC, ESPN/2/U, SEC NW, ACC NW were mentioned. Also said there will be more SEC games on ABC in prime time when restrictions from the CBS SEC contract go away.
LikeLike
Amazon or Apple makes more sense than ESPN in terms of $… unless you let ESPN put those games on ESPN+ as well.
Question is really just what is that window worth? Maybe with some Friday games in combo. Dunno but this has to make money to make sense.
LikeLike
I agree that I cannot understand why ESPN could not simply pay the PAC a few extra dollars to add San Diego State and have after dark games every week. Why pay the B1G more money for those after dark games than ESPN is supposedly going to offer the entire PAC?
Yes, Oregon v Michigan, or even Washington v Wisconsin is likely to get a bigger audience than nearly any all PAC game, but so be it. ESPN can get a lot more inventory for a lot less money by keeping PAC intact.
LikeLike
I cannot understand why ESPN could not simply pay the PAC a few extra dollars to add San Diego State and have after dark games every week. Why pay the B1G more money for those after dark games than ESPN is supposedly going to offer the entire PAC?
They would never get that choice. The Big Ten would add the new schools and go to market. Of course, the Big Ten needs to believe that it has other options that prevent ESPN from winning with a lowball offer (“Hello, Apple!”).
Unlike the Big Ten’s other media partners, ESPN has nothing to show after dark, other than SportsCenter, if it does not show football. They are particularly incented to have live games there. There is a limit to what these games are worth, but I suspect streamers would keep ESPN honest.
LikeLike
The Pac could have 2 After Dark games every week now even without adding SDSU. And the Pac may or may not get more/less than what the B10 would need to get (roughly $300mm extra from somewhere) to make adding 4 West Coast schools worthwhile.
But ESPN isn’t the only media company. Streamers exist. Also, B10 CFP money would increase if the Pac is destroyed and it goes more by appearances (like the Big Dance). And there is extra BTN money too.
LikeLike
Oh, and of course, the West Coat 4 could take a haircut (“buy-in period”) for as long as 12 years if the B10 can get ND and/or FSU to sign on as members 12 years later* when the ACC collapses.
*And/or get ND to agree to the same type of deal they have with the ACC but for 8 games a year scheduled with B10 years instead of 5; which still wouldn’t be that big of a change for the Irish if the WC4 and Miami join as 2 games with schools in/around the Carolinas now would become 1 extra game with schools in the Midwest and 1 extra game with schools on the West Coast.
LikeLike
Richard: “The Pac could have 2 After Dark games every week now even without adding SDSU. And the Pac may or may not get more/less than what the B10 would need to get to make adding 4 West Coast schools worthwhile.”
It still makes little sense to add more West Coast schools. If the viewership does indeed justify a late night game, we’ll be able to do that virtually every week with USC and UCLA home games with 7:30 kickoffs. The Big Ten certainly doesn’t need to add more WC schools to capture the questionable late night market.
LikeLike
If the viewership does indeed justify a late night game, we’ll be able to do that virtually every week with USC and UCLA home games with 7:30 kickoffs. The Big Ten certainly doesn’t need to add more WC schools to capture the questionable late night market.
The Big Ten has already sold its entire inventory with zero late-night games. To the extent there is any money in it, they need to expand to create more inventory.
Also, you can’t do it with just USC and UCLA, because you want them in the 3:30 and 7:30 time slots sometimes. Michigan @USC is never going to be played at 10:30pm ET.
LikeLike
Marc: “The Big Ten has already sold its entire inventory with zero late-night games. To the extent there is any money in it, they need to expand to create more inventory.”
Your comment is nonsensical. The Big Ten hasn’t sold its entire inventory of games. And guess what? If they do add more schools, they’ll need to revise the schedule.
Marc: “Also, you can’t do it with just USC and UCLA, because you want them in the 3:30 and 7:30 time slots sometimes. Michigan @USC is never going to be played at 10:30pm ET.”
Right, you don’t fill up that late slot Michigan @ USC. You fill it up with Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa vs USC and Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa vs UCLA.
Also, UCLA had five games last year with 7:00 or 7:30 PT kickoffs plus two at 5:30 and one at 6:00 PT. USC had five kickoffs at 7:30 or later.They like to start late to escape the heat, much like the SEC.
https://uclabruins.com/sports/football/schedule/2021
https://usctrojans.com/sports/football/schedule/2021
LikeLike
Your comment is nonsensical. The Big Ten hasn’t sold its entire inventory of games.
I must not be understanding you. What games in its current inventory has the Big Ten not already sold?
Right, you don’t fill up that late slot Michigan @ USC. You fill it up with Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa vs USC and Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa vs UCLA.
But USC and UCLA will have at least some home games against foes you would not, under any circumstances, want to show in the graveyard shift. That is why you cannot have a late-night game every week without expanding.
To be more specific, UCLA and USC will have about 14 home games a year. You cannot show a late-night game “virtually every week” unless every single one of their home games starts at 7:30pt. I would be surprised if the Big Ten wants to do that.
LikeLike
Marc: “I must not be understanding you. What games in its current inventory has the Big Ten not already sold?”
Everything that trickles down to the BTN.
Marc: “UCLA and USC will have about 14 home games a year. You cannot show a late-night game “virtually every week” unless every single one of their home games starts at 7:30pt. I would be surprised if the Big Ten wants to do that.”
Marc, I didn’t say we could do it Cross My Heart every week. But we could easily do it on the weeks when USC/UCLA are not playing tOSU/MI/PS and that would fill up most of the late-night Saturdays. And even if we had a couple of voids, that would be a heck of a lot cheaper than bringing in Cal, Stanford whatever for a full piece of the Big Ten pie.
LikeLike
Silver did not consider broadcast windows at all. You are right that the after-dark window gives the west coast schools extra value that ACC schools can’t bring. But it’s still the least-watched window, by far. Does it add enough value for 2–4 new mouths to feed? That’s the question.
Related, the Big10 already has 3 other exclusive windows. Does adding more teams in those same windows really add a ton more value? Yes it will increase the quality of the Tier 1 games, but really its just pushing better games to the BTN, Peacock, FS1, etc.
If you add 4 Pac schools, that’s 30 more football games per year. They won’t all be played after dark. You can sell a new package to a streamer like Apple or Amazon. There is value to BTN as well, because now they can sell it in the Seattle market (or wherever the new schools come from).
(This is not an argument that 4 Pac schools will in fact join.)
LikeLike
Marc: “Does it add enough value for 2–4 new mouths to feed? That’s the question.”
I don’t think any of the PAC schools add enough value to justify further expansion. If we look at TV viewership for 2021, here’s how the leading candidates rank:
10 Oregon
37 Utah
38 Washington
46 Stanford
64 Colorado
73 Appalachian St*
75 Carolina Coastal*
76 Cal
Oregon received a huge boost with their game vs Ohio State. The lowest three in the Big Ten are 39 Maryland, 48 Northwestern and 58 Rutgers.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
That window is just not as valuable. That’s the hard part with expansion beyond 16.
Its why I didn’t see it without Notre Dame until McMurphy’s reporting. The Big 10 is going beyond 16 for reasons other than increasing the per share TV contract.
That window would be the reason to go to 20. Then you have 6 west coast schools who could each do 2 home games in that time slot. Most of these schools don’t really like night games so more schools means they still get most games in the afternoon. They aren’t like LSU who loves night games.
LikeLike
Agree completely that the window isnt as valuable. But is the 10pm window with no real competition worth more than having more games to put on FS1/Espn2/BTN to compete with the current exclusive windows on NBC/CBS/FOX. I dont know the answer, but i think that is the real quesiton.
You could see a scenario where ESPN gets a late night package, and Apple/Amazon gets a late night package (so that would be games 45-60 and 61-75 or something like that–you guys are better at this than me). Dont think it necessarily adds value per school, but i think it could add enough value to justify the 4 team expansion and maybe be only slightly dilutive. And ultimately if the Big is going to grow to 24, having new windows to put games on is going to be crucial or else the Big10 is going to be competing with itself (more than it is today) on the standard windows.
And its a bit of a land grab, because unless some of the 4 corners schools really develop in the next decade, these will be the top games at that new window. Washington/Illinois on Apple will have more value than Oregon State-Boise State. And the SEC will not be able to compete in that window.
LikeLike
The After Dark window isn’t extremely valuable and will pay for the addition of only 2 more West Coast schools at most (and even that’s a bit of a stretch).
The B10 could also monetize Friday night more (with either ACC or Pac additions) but there too, that slot isn’t as valuable as the 3 most valuable Saturday slots and picks the B10 has already sold.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Trying to answer my own question here, and only including games on ESPN or OTA networks. Not sure if this will format correctly, but…
Week Time Network Teams Viewers
2 10:15 ESPN Utah/BYU 1.5
11:56 Fox Stan/USC 1.4
01:00 ABC Florida/USF 1.6
03:30 ESPN2 UGA/UAB 1.1
3 10:15 ESPN ASU/BYU 1.5
03:30 FOX USC/Wash St 1.6
03:30 ESPN FSU/Wake 0.7
4 10:30 ESPN AZ/Ore 1.7
Noon ESPN LSU/Miss St 1.8
5 10:30 ESPN Stanford/ASU 1.1
03:30 ESPN FSU/UNC 1.1
Really interesting. Stanford/ASU on the same network had a slightly higher audience at 10:30pm as FSU/UNC (two top expansion candidates) at 3:30. AZ/Ore at 10:30pm had roughly the same audience as LSU/Miss St at noon on the same network. ASU/BYU had double the audience of FSU/Wake (10pm vs 3pm) on the same network. Stan/USC started at midnight (?!) and had a similar audience as Florida/ASF starting at 1pm.
Seems to me this window is really underrated.
LikeLike
I think you are getting at an interesting point here, that even though less total viewers may be available for the late time slots, the lower competition may be enough to offset this issue. Plus, will being in the Big Ten further raise the profile of these games and, thus, their viewership?
LikeLike
That is exactly the point. Sure, less people watch games at 10pm or midnight. But there is no competition. At 3pm, games are on OTA networks, conference networks, ESPN and the derivatives, and the Fox channels. The audience is huge but fragmented.
The Big10 could lock in the late windows where the audience is a fraction of the daytime audience, but with no competition. And with greater awareness and some central time zone teams playing in those windows, viewers should go even higher. The fact that LSU/Miss St is drawing the same as Oregon/AZ on the same network to me speaks volumes.
The 4 additions could be asked/forced to play many of their games in that window. The Big10 could even create another similar window with double headers on Friday, for at least some weeks. Moving now locks in these windows for the Big10 permanently. Moving east creates more inventory for BTN and FS1.
I have completely flipped and now think the 4 west coast schools needs to be the next move.
LikeLike
None of these viewership numbers are ones that would make content carriers pay big money. People pay up for FSU and LSU not for down FSU/LSU teams playing Wake/MSSt./UNC (note that I’m not one of those bullish on UNC) but for the 4-10mm viewers that top 10/top 15 FSU and LSU draw in games against other top 10/top 15 king programs.
Again, a B10 After Dark package can pay for maybe adding 2 more West Coast schools. More revenue would be needed to pay for 4 more West Coast schools.
LikeLike
Well just looking at your week 2:
12 Fox OR-tOSU 7.73 million
3:30 Fox TAMU-CU 4.50
1 ABC FL-USF 1.60 (as you note)
4:30 ABC Iowa-Iowa St. 3.89
8:00 ABC UW-Michigan 4.75
7:00 ESPN UT-Arkansas 3.36
12 ESPN TN-Pitt 1.74
So the 10:30 games are way below the network games and well below the better ESPN games (and UT-Arkansas was unfortunately a snoozer-we were barely paying attention in the 2nd half)
LikeLike
Correct, not expecting them to outdraw the networks. My point is that in your example, the TN-Pitt and UF-USF games are devalued because they are going against each other and (more importantly) they are going against Ohio State. So if a game of that quality (maybe a Washington–Illinois or an Cal-Wisc) is on a late window, that creates value compared to putting that game in another window.
If an expansion of 4 teams creates 30 games, and that allows for 10 additional games at 10pm on sat, 5 games at 10pm on Friday, and 5 Friday nights where you have doubleheaders (and the remaining 5 to the BTN to keep fans of new schools interested), what is that worth? Add the bump in value to the 3 exclusive windows (with ND-Stanford, plus Oregon and Wash games). Plus lots of good non-revenue content for the BTN (add additional carriage fees), additional basketball inventory, and tourney credits/greater playoff share. Are those benefits combined worth $250-$300 mil? I have no idea.
But I think additional expansion only works if there are additional windows to put games. Just eyeballing it, maybe there are 10-12 million viewers on core networks in the core windows. With better teams with more national interest, that after dark spot would create more value than more teams going head to head.
LikeLike
No, it doesn’t add up to $250-300mm.
You’d need some CFP money (from eliminating the Pac as a power conference)
+
BTN money
+
The West Coast 4 would have to take a haircut (buy-in) until ND and/or FSU join the B10 (or ND forms a scheduling alliance with the B10).
Even then, the financial math is tricky.
Also, there’s no way the B10 would be for doubleheader Fridays. Most B10 schools don’t want to play on Fridays at all.
LikeLike
Money is not the only consideration in league expansion. There are also traditional rivalries, culture, academics… The fact that Warren thought 20 schools was possible or that Silver put up a 24 team league demonstrates that point. Even at 20, some of the additions might not (likely would not) pay for themselves.
And there are synergies to consider. Schools like Cal that don’t generate large viewerships now might in an expanded conference if paired with another school, say UNC.
A coast to coast conference with multiple teams on both coasts and in between is itself a new concept, and it might generate a whole new set of fans.
LikeLike
A few years ago, consensus here was “16-team leagues don’t work.” Now the question is whether it’ll be 20 or 24!
LikeLike
I still think 16 is a risk long term. 24 is a near certainty for failure long term.
LikeLike
I don’t know how to evaluate it. There is very little evidence for 16, and none for 24. People used to cite the WAC as evidence that 16-team conferences don’t work. The 16-team WAC obviously failed, but the reasons it failed might be specific to that situation. It is hard to extrapolate from a sample of one.
One big difference is that nobody ever truly wanted to be in the WAC: it was always a temporary home until a better gig came along. I see from Wikipedia that the WAC has 30 former members, which might just be a record for an NCAA conference. (I have not checked them all.)
There is perhaps a big difference between a conference affiliation that is meant to be permanent (the Big Ten, the SEC) and one that everyone knows they would readily leave for a better offer.
LikeLike
The Southern Conference has 34 former members (including the majority of the SEC and ACC). At it’s biggest, it had 23 members.
LikeLike
The Southern Conference split in 1933 (SEC). It split in 1953 (ACC). The WAC 16 split (MWC). The Big East split (AAC). The MVC didn’t even have 16 and it split twice. 1928 (Big 6-eventually Big 8). 1970s more a slow series of escapes contributing to the Metro and Great Midwest. A couple of Division II conferences got big and split. Great Northwest and Lone Star Conference.
Every conference that has gotten that big has split.
There is no evidence of a conference that big lasting for a long time.
LikeLike
And the SIAA (founded 1894) had 22 members when it split with the formation of the Southern in 1921. Most of the original SEC members were SIAA members before becoming Southern members, than SEC members in 1932.
LikeLike
Why is there something inherently unstable about larger leagues?
As long as there’s a financial multiplier that applies to larger sizes, it can work.
LikeLike
In group dynamics, groups larger than a certain size just have more trouble working together. There is a lot of research on that. From a logical point of view, the more you have in a conference, the less in common the various members have, making it harder to stay together. Also larger conferences mean fewer conference titles for everyone.
The stability of the Big 10 and SEC was due to how similar the institutions within each conference were. Contrast that with the SWC which had 3 big city small privates, 1 big city big commuter school, 1 small town medium size private, 3 large flagships/landgrants and one large semi-regional school.
LikeLike
You bring up fair points regarding groups in a vacuum and that has indeed guided college athletics over the past 120+ years.
The main issue right now that’s forcing consolidation is the changes in TV markets as well as the eventual reality of professionalization of the sport (i.e. paying players) approaching fast.
Those 2 dynamics in particular argue for consolidation of the sport into the fewest possible stable configurations, which appears to be 3 major conferences + the rest: 2 superconferences with the major brands and most of the other major flagships + a 3rd conference with the additional schools below those in terms of tv value and the rest are just there to fill numbers.
The changes to TV markets in particular due to streaming and the original
“bundle” of broadcast/cable falling apart has led to audiences needing to be aggregated as far as sports go. Bring as many people together to watch something to fight for eyeballs in a world with so many choices.
It’s why I do think ND’s eventual fate is to join a conference. The OTA world will only hold together so long in my mind. Eventually you want to be a part of a conference with millions of fans as a built in base.
As far as professionalization of the sport, NIL and the like will probably force us into a world where the schools share revenues with the players. One way to do that through conferences would be for conferences to have conference-wide NIL programs that distribute TV money to players (in order to keep the hands of the schools clean).
Those 2 critical drivers are why this time may be different and the formation of giant professional leagues of 20-24 schools makes sense.
LikeLike
The stability of the Big 10 and SEC was due to how similar the institutions within each conference were. Contrast that with the SWC which had 3 big city small privates, 1 big city big commuter school, 1 small town medium size private, 3 large flagships/landgrants and one large semi-regional school.
This argues against your point, as the SWC was never a big conference. Even so, the collapse of the SWC has usually been attributed not to the points you mentioned, but to the departure of Arkansas—which made it a one-state league—and the death penalty meted out to SMU.
So far, the Big Ten and the SEC have been careful to expand very slowly, and only adding like-minded institutions. This makes them more like the pro sports leagues, which have grown steadily over the past 50–60 years — but usually by no more than two teams at a time.
I would be far more worried if the Big Ten added six ACC schools in a big gulp, something that shows no danger of happening, except in fans’ heads.
LikeLike
Marc: “I would be far more worried if the Big Ten added six ACC schools in a big gulp, something that shows no danger of happening, except in fans’ heads.”
I agree. I believe this ACC GOR is unassailable. I’ve been ruminating about the comments of the FSU President and it appears this guy is just covering his gluteals. Rather than just sounding like a wuss and telling the Noles’ fan base that they’re stuck until 2036, he portrays himself as a fighter who’s doing everything that he can get FSU to the SEC or Big Ten. However he knows full well that FSU is stuck until 2036.
LikeLike
Arkansas leaving did not immediately kill the SWC, but it lost 2 of its best 4 games. As today, media money was key in realignment in the 1990s. After the NCAA lost its monopoly on media rights the P10 and B10 struck conference specific contracts. Most of the rest of FBS was represented by the College Football Association to market media rights. Arkansas’s last SWC season was 1991 but SWC played through 1995. The SEC announced it was pulling out of the CFA in February 1994 leading to its demise. The B12 was announced in March of 1994. The CFA contract and SWC both ended after the 1995 season. Both the SEC and B12 conference specific media contracts started in 1996. The addition of Arkansas and South Carolina allowed the SEC to add a highly profitable championship game. A championship game, Texas politics, and the potential to follow the SWC if Texas went to another conference were all factors in the B8 inviting TT and Baylor in addition to Texas and A&M.
LikeLike
You totally missed the point of my post. It was that the similarity of the schools is what has lead to stability for the Big 10 and SEC. There are reasons other than size for conferences to fail.
LikeLike
The Southern Conference has had 44 full members according to Wiki. They include:
10 current members
11 SEC members
8 ACC members
3 Sun Belt members
2 AAC members
1 Big 10 member
1 Big 12 member
3 CAA members
5 other FCS/basketball only schools
LikeLike
The MVC has had 37 full members according to Wiki. They include (2025 conferences):
Big 12 6
AAC 4
SEC 2
Big 10 2
ACC 1
CUSA 1
BE 2
current members 12
Other 7
The Southern and MVC have hosted 32 of the 69 P5 members and 42 total FBS schools.
LikeLike
Bob, I agree, there definitely are benefits to the B10 and SEC (and B12) if those leagues manage to whittle down the power conferences to 2.5 with the only programs people will watch (more market power to the remaining power conferences in TV negotiations and they capture more of the CFP money).
And the B10 wants to visit alums for fundraising and for demography reasons, expand in to states with fertile football recruiting grounds and lots of potential full-pay OOS students. Forming a conference where at least the top end rivals the Ivy League academically is also a nice plus. So if the B10 could manage to make adding the Bay Area schools, GTech, Miami, and UW not be dilutive, they would do it. The question is how. They could add UO but would need at least 1 of ND/FSU (or capture ND’s value somehow; possibly through a scheduling alliance).
LikeLike
These are fair points.
I think the main pushback that I’d have is that the Big Ten already has a bunch of building projects on its hands and may not want more: Rutgers and Maryland were good examples of that. Illinois and Indiana have become building projects.
You don’t necessarily want to keep adding schools like that unless there’s a payoff at the end.
And you don’t want to dilute the product. Schools want to play Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/USC as much as possible. Have to be careful about diluting that.
Cal for example has 1 co-conference championship in the last several decades, along with only a handful of seasons with more than 7 wins.
They’re clearly behind USC, UCLA, and Stanford as a football/athletics brand.
California is big, but can it justify 4 teams?
Can make a strong argument for Washington, Stanford , and perhaps Oregon.
Beyond that Arizona State makes more sense than Cal as a “market grab”.
LikeLike
When speaking of building projects, I think that Maryland and Rutgers have become harder to build for the moment due to NIL. Illinois and Indiana may be having similar problems. According to 247Sports right now Purdue, MD and RU are ranked in the 40s for the 2023 high school seniors. ILL and IND are much lower. So is Wisconsin, but somehow they always come back at the end.
I am surprised about MD, since they should be getting NIL support from Under Armour, though UA is having its own financial issues. Maybe MD is on the back burner for them.
As to RU, this looks to be their bad recruiting classes. (They have had worse.) Several of the top players (including the number one in NJ who went to Texas A&M) were heavy RU leans for a couple of years, but there was apparently insufficient NIL. Coach Schiano says that RU needs at least $3 million per year in NIL and they do not have it. (By the way, Ohio State said that they need $13 million per year).
I assume that Illinois and Indiana may be having similar issues. In three or four years as the new contract money kicks in all of these schools should figure it out. For now the bottom teams are staying there,
LikeLike
The critical difference I suppose among the 4 is that Rutgers, Maryland, and Illinois should have a lot of potential.
They’re flagships without similar competition in state (Northwestern recruits completely differently from Illinois).
Indiana on the other hand has to deal with Purdue, and is 3rd in the state behind ND and Purdue.
Cal is in a similar position, while they do recruit differently than Stanford, they’re absolutely 4th in the state as a football brand, far behind USC/UCLA as far as blue chip recruits, and any academically minded ones will go to Stanford if they are among the highest performers.
Cal is basically just deadweight as far as the cfb/mbb go, and it’s hard to change that. Somebody has to take losses, but not sure we go out of our way to add them.
It’s why I’d rather take Colorado or Arizona State or Utah over Cal; I just don’t see what Cal brings to the table other than elite academics… but that’s not a good reason for expansion.
I’d rather take a giant public that could be unique in the Big Ten in its state like Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland. Those types of building projects work.
LikeLike
Er, you kind of sidestepped the fact that CA is 6.5 MD’s, 4 NJ’s, and 3.5 IL’s in population.
Miami is the 3rd most valuable brand in FL and we don’t discount them because of that. UMD and RU have potential because they are close to a lot of football talent, but so is Cal, actually. Cal football is actually a lot like UMD football, with a brief period of being really good in the early-mid 2000’s and a lot of blah ever since (RU football almost the same). But if UMD and RU have potential, so does Cal.
LikeLike
Er, you kind of sidestepped the fact that CA is 6.5 MD’s, 4 NJ’s, and 3.5 IL’s in population.
Miami is the 3rd most valuable brand in FL and we don’t discount them because of that. UMD and RU have potential because they are close to a lot of football talent, but so is Cal, actually. Cal football is actually a lot like UMD football, with a brief period of being really good in the early-mid 2000’s and a lot of blah ever since (RU football almost the same). But if UMD and RU have potential, so does Cal.
LikeLike
The critical difference I suppose among the 4 is that Rutgers, Maryland, and Illinois should have a lot of potential.
College sports teams are very hard to improve, even when logic says they have potential. Illinois has just three Big Ten championships in the past 50 years. They have just three 10-win seasons all-time. It is hard to argue that they are just one good coaching hire away from being competitive, when they are on their 11th head coach in that time span. I hardly need to tell you about Rutgers.
Maryland, at least, has been great in our lifetimes. In the 13 seasons from 1973–85, they won the ACC six times and came in second an additional five times. They finished in the T-20 in eight years out of the 13. But the ACC then did not have the Florida schools or Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
@Richard, Marc
You both bring up fair points; I think the ultimate question is whether the laggards in the Big Ten can take advantage of Big Ten money in the future in ways that weren’t available before. Whenever “paying players” happens, if its coming from conference distributions, the question is whether any of these types of programs can use that as a recruiting edge to actually bring better talent to the parts of the conference that are far away (the programs west of Ohio/Michigan especially).
Can that help change mediocre trajectories? Obviously coaching will matter, and proximity to talent will always be an advantage for a school like Maryland versus Illinois or schools like UCLA.
It is a fair point that it’s hard to change history. The top schools (especially those located near places with tons of talent) have so many advantages that are hard to dislodge unless something materially changes: see Nebraska which appears to basically just be an average program (with incredible fan support) at this point.
LikeLike
B1G may be using Oregon and McMurphy to lead on the Pac and delay a new GOR, while they quietly negotiate with their preferred ACC targets. Find out how many/if any they can grab before deciding what their final expansion number and timeline is, and thus how many Pac they’d like to round out with.
The FSU president admitted to more than a year of realignment talks with the B1G and SEC, so obviously they haven’t given up on trying to find loopholes and escape cost reduction strategies. That’s surely only intensified the last 2 months. Probably more schools are now willing to seriously consider cooperating in exit scheming.
Where there’s a will doesn’t mean there will be a way, but it’s pretty obvious that exploring hasn’t stopped.
ESPN bigwig stated the other day that they are strongly against ACC raiding, as they have invested too much in the ACCNet and it’s a 2 decade timeline to recoup their investment.
I forgot to mention an interesting nugget in the Thamel/College Gameday podcast I linked above. He said (paraphrasing) that Warren and the conference office may have a vision of 20 (or more), but the view from the ground is different. Implying the AD’s/presidents/others he talks to aren’t on board.
I recall, maybe a week ago, that on the same day that the story broke about Warren pushing for more expansion and paying players (“I want to change college football”) there was a separate interview with OhSU AD Gene Smith. It’s key soundbite was Smith saying, “If we start paying players, I’m out.”
Some have argued that Gene Smith and OhSU is more powerful than Warren and the conference office, and given more credit to him for the USC expansion. Interesting times.
LikeLike
ESPN bigwig stated the other day that they are strongly against ACC raiding, as they have invested too much in the ACCNet and it’s a 2 decade timeline to recoup their investment.
I have always believed the 2 decade timeline was a swindle to lock in the ACC until the mid-2030s. Nobody in media does projects that take 20 years to pay off. The ACC fell for that ruse, and ESPN made out like a bandit. Naturally they do not want to see that deal collapse: it’s one of the best bargains in sports.
LikeLike
I was only half listening to the podcast, but my interpretation was just that he was explaining why they liked those long timelines on GORs, because they had startup costs for the networks like the ACC Network. I didn’t interpret that as “strongly against ACC raiding.” He never said anything about being for it, but I don’t think the “strongly against” is a good interpretation of what he said.
LikeLike
I agree.
And I find it very difficult to believe Burke Magnus’ comment that ESPN is never involved on the front end of conference expansion. So the Longhorn Network just happened to appear out of nowhere when realignment talks surfaced over a decade ago? And Mike Slive and Greg Sankey had no idea what the media rights implications of expansion might be??
LikeLike
Well, the content carriers, if they are involved in conference expansion, mostly want to _prevent_ expansion/consolidation (which was what forming the LHN effectively did, at least for some part for a bit). The content carriers have zero interest in the content providers (the P2 conferences) concentrating bargaining power. I’m not sure how you can glean from conference commissioners (who certainly have plenty of access to advisors and outside media consultants) knowing the media rights implications of expansion the idea that networks drove expansion.
LikeLike
From the Athletic about ESPN/FOX role in realignment from a Power 2 AD: “They really don’t like to be known as deciding who is in what league, but don’t think there aren’t conversations of, ‘If we take this property, how much value are they going to bring?’” one athletic director told The Athletic in July. “We’re not picking random schools. … They just don’t want the optics of them deciding, but the money is coming from them. They have to tell the league or someone (the TV value of schools).”
Reality is, ESPN/FOX tell the SEC and Big Ten whether schools are additive in terms of TV value.
LikeLike
Yeah, but media consultants can do the same. This isn’t super-hard stuff to figure out.
The content carriers aren’t dictating expansion (and in fact, don’t want it).
LikeLike
@Richard
Sure, but FOX and the Big Ten especially are so tied up at the hip that I’m struggling to think about how the Big Ten would be making these decisions without discussing them with Fox executives.
Also I want to push back somewhat: ESPN may not want expansion, but FOX probably does.
FOX wanted to walk away from their Pac-12 deal; if USC/UCLA go to the Big Ten it means they’re probably spending less than if they kept the Pac-12 deal with USC/UCLA.
For FOX, if they’re just focused on the Big Ten and Big 12, then expansion generally benefits them; their properties are acquiring market share and becoming more valuable.
For ESPN, the calculus is different because they have good deals right now with a lot of conferences. For them, they want smaller conferences and less consolidation so they can get a lot more content for cheaper.
LikeLike
I would also push back on the idea that the carriers do not want expansion. ESPN doesn’t want the Big Ten to expand, because it would make their competitors’ inventory better, and their own worse. ESPN doesn’t want the ACC to fall apart, because it already has the ACC at a bargain price.
But suppose Ohio State were talking to the SEC. I know that’s not happening, but think about it. Would ESPN mind having Ohio State football in its SEC package, even if it means they have to pay for it? I suspect not.
LikeLike
@Marc
I really do think that’s exactly why the networks are in favor of some forms of consolidation here.
For FOX/CBS, adding ND would dramatically upgrade the Big Ten package, guaranteeing more high quality/national match ups.
Maybe for NBC it might be better to keep them separate since they want a double header of ND/Big Ten most weeks and the ND games are not too expensive but even they would theoretically get a boost down the road if they were able to show upwards to 20 Big Ten games including 7-8 involving ND.
Or fast forward to the 2030s, adding FSU or Miami or Clemson to the Big Ten would truly nationalize the Big Ten by adding a national brand from the south which adds another place from which to increase viewership of Big Ten games as well as creating more matchups with national interest.
ESPN is in a tougher spot but still would much prefer to keep FSU and UNC in their fold I’d imagine.
The TV networks don’t mind paying more for a better product. They’d welcome it in most circumstances.
USC/UCLA to the Big Ten is a big win for FOX/NBC/CBS in terms of upgrading the product they’re selling. None of them has any interest in the Pac-12 or ACC so adding brands that add value to the Big Ten is a plus for those networks.
LikeLike
While it may seem like it, conferences are not tied to content carriers, however. At least forever. So sure, Fox/CBS/NBC would pay if USC+UCLA are added, but unless they’re getting away with not paying for the fair value of the product (CBS for the top SEC pick; ESPN by the end of the SEC deal), there’s no reason for them to actually encourage expansion/consolidation. For the B10 with USC+UCLA, Fox/CBS/NBC got more but they also paid more.
LikeLike
Marc & Zeek:
The networks would certain pay for a better product, but unless they are capturing surplus value (like with CBS’s sweetheart first-pick SEC deal or towards the end of the current SEC-ESPN contract), there is no economic incentive for them to want the content providers to consolidate and concentrate market power.
All the arguments I seen for why the networks would be _for_ content provider consolidation (the P2 gobbling up everyone else of value) are frankly dumb (no, they would not prefer just having 1-2 conferences to deal with; they have enough people on staff to handle more than 1-2 college football TV deal negotiations every several years)
LikeLike
All the arguments I seen for why the networks would be _for_ content provider consolidation (the P2 gobbling up everyone else of value) are frankly dumb…
Except, you acknowledged that at least one of them is not dumb: they will pay up for a better product. The networks can’t predict the future any better than we can; they are strictly transactional.
ESPN was happy when the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma, because they will get those games. Fox was happy when the Big Ten added USC and UCLA, for the same reason.
Now, maybe those moves eventually lead to a P2 consolidation that they won’t like, but they are not thinking that many moves ahead. They favor the moves that are in their current self-interest, and that’s it.
LikeLike
Marc, how are you determining the emotions of a network?
Again, they would pay for better content, and it is their job to talk up every property they broadcast (they are marketeers and not idiots), but how are you determining that (assuming they will pay a market rate and not get a sweetheart deal) that ESPN is happier SEC gets Texas and OU rather than ESPN getting the old SEC (so paying them less) and getting a part of the B12 at market rates as well?
Did someone in ESPN actually say “we love that the SEC raided the B12”?
LikeLike
Marc, how are you determining the emotions of a network?. . . Did someone in ESPN actually say “we love that the SEC raided the B12”?
How are you determining it? You seem to be so sure that the networks dislike these deals.
LikeLike
Marc: As I spelled out many times before, because of economic logic and because of their actions in the past. No content carrier would want content providers to consolidate and concentrate economic power. How is that ever in their economic interest?
And indeed, we saw that in the past, ESPN started the LHN to try to keep schools from leaving the B12 and paid the B12 the same amount even after key schools left to keep the B12 alive.
So where is your logic and argument? I see nothing but “I know you are but what am I?”, which doesn’t even work in a 1st grade playground.
Do you have any evidence anywhere to support your bald assertion that Fox and ESPN were happy that the SEC and B10 took the RRR and LA schools, weakening the B12 and Pac?
LikeLike
Do you have any evidence anywhere to support your bald assertion that Fox and ESPN were happy that the SEC and B10 took the RRR and LA schools, weakening the B12 and Pac?
It is a business full of leaks, and yet no network executive has said, even anonymously, that they are unhappy with expansion. You’re relying on purported logic because you’ve got nothing else. If it is so “logical,” ultimately someone with decision authority would say so.
Conferences regularly spitball expansion with network partners to gauge what potential additions are worth. If the networks secretly hate expansion, they are doing a lousy job of talking their conference partners out of it. Therefore I default to the idea that when the networks say they are happy with their new deals, they mean it. The person who claims they are lying needs more than just, “logically they should be unhappy.”
The various sportswriters who accept anonymous sources with no filter would just love to print the story, “Behind the scenes, Fox is furious at the Big Ten for adding USC and UCLA.” Where is that story?
LikeLike
@Richard
The various networks have different incentives here.
CBS and NBC are only interested in national games for their networks. Thus higher quality matchups benefits them, and to the extent that they can capture some of the surplus value, they benefit.
The Big Ten is not trying to get every single $ out of the networks; this is a joint undertaking in a sense.
Adding USC/UCLA probably increases the audience for the games that CBS and NBC will draft. How much? Well that’s a part of what they probably calculated when they increased their offers.
Let’s just say that adding USC and UCLA means the value of their package goes up 20% because it means more likelihood of the 1st-3rd best games of the week (depending on draft order/positioning) will include a matchup with national implications. Thus you can imagine audiences/ad rates 20% higher.
Their offer to the Big Ten probably goes up 20% then because they’re splitting a portion of the value. If the value generated per year by the Big Ten deal goes from $600 million to $720 million, then they can shift what they’re paying the Big Ten from $300 million to $360 million for example.
Everyone benefits Richard because NBC and CBS don’t really care about what happens to the games past their pecking order.
It’s different for ESPN. ESPN would prefer to keep their cheap ACC contract in place because they own all that content at undermarket prices. There’s times when consolidation is bad, but generally ESPN is the one that faces that issue more than FOX/CBS/NBC who all benefit from the Big Ten getting better content for them to sell.
LikeLike
z33k: “The various networks have different incentives here.”
I agree, and the Big Ten really need to take a hard look at that 7:30 PT/10:30 ET time slot. USC and UCLA have been playing 50% of their games there for years.
If USC and UCLA play earlier games, will they compete with Bama, UGA, Texas, LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, Nebraska? No.
If USC and UCLA play later games, will they compete with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado? Yes. Will USC and UCLA dominate those ratings? Yes.
LikeLike
@Colin: You make valid points — and yet, if the Big Ten is planning on a lot of 10:30 ET games, they have not yet mentioned it.
When USC/UCLA host those games today, the visiting team is from the Pacific time zone too, or at worst the Mountain time zone (one hour away). At least it is a sociable hour for them.
In the Big Ten, the opponents will always be from the Central or Eastern time zone, a much worse proposition for their fans watching at home. Perhaps there is some opposition to that idea, especially from teams that would bear the brunt of the late window. (Penn State doesn’t have to worry.)
LikeLike
Marc: “When USC/UCLA host those games today, the visiting team is from the Pacific time zone too, or at worst the Mountain time zone.”
USC and UCLA will continue to have virtually all of their OOC games against teams in the MT/PT time zones. Those games are early in the season when it is too hot for early games in LA. For the late Sept or Oct games vs Big Ten opponents, they’ll simply play at LA at 7:30 PT.
LikeLike
Marc, again, I’ve already produced several examples where the networks want to prevent conference consolidation. We also have a insider telling Andy Staples that anyone who allows the SEC and B10 contracts to end at the same time (thus allowing the 2 leagues to form a single bargaining unit) should be fired on the spot. So we have plenty of examples showing that the networks don’t like consolidation of the power programs. You just choose to ignore it. And when I ask for evidence to back your position, you can come up with . . . .nothing.
LikeLike
I ask for evidence to back your position, you can come up with . . . .nothing.
We are in complete agreement that the other position is backed by no facts.
LikeLike
Marc:
This is what I wrote:
“Marc, again, I’ve already produced several examples where the networks want to prevent conference consolidation. We also have a insider telling Andy Staples that anyone who allows the SEC and B10 contracts to end at the same time (thus allowing the 2 leagues to form a single bargaining unit) should be fired on the spot. So we have plenty of examples showing that the networks don’t like consolidation of the power programs. You just choose to ignore it. ”
You do not consider those facts or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Because it’s pretty clear (if you can read) that we are not in agreement (other than on you having zero facts to to back your position).
LikeLike
So we have plenty of examples showing that the networks don’t like consolidation of the power programs. You just choose to ignore it.
What I said, was that the networks either like or dislike consolidation when it suits their selfish interests at the moment. Since networks’ selfish interests are constantly changing and seldom in alignment, one can find a sufficient number of cherry-picked facts to support pretty much any assertion. This is what it appears (to me) you have done.
We also have a insider telling Andy Staples that anyone who allows the SEC and B10 contracts to end at the same time (thus allowing the 2 leagues to form a single bargaining unit) should be fired on the spot.
With all of the ink spilt on anonymous sports reporting, you can find support for almost every imaginable position. If all of the reporting from Staples and reporters of his caliber were combined into one story, it would be full of ridiculous contradictions. That is why reputable news outlets outside of sports do not publish such stories.
Sure, it’s fun to read them. Just understand that they are probably not true. This one collapses instantly upon the slightest analysis. The SEC’s entire contract is with ESPN. The Big Ten’s new contracts are with everyone except ESPN. There is no single fireable person who can decide by themselves when those contracts will end.
LikeLike
Marc: “one can find a sufficient number of cherry-picked facts to support pretty much any assertion.”
And yet you didn’t manage to find a single fact to support your assertion that the networks like the P2 to expand.
I find that rather damning.
LikeLike
And yet you didn’t manage to find a single fact to support your assertion that the networks like the P2 to expand.
Sure I did: the networks all said they were happy. You are the one claiming with no evidence that they are lying.
LikeLike
With the long-term plans ESPN says it has for the ACCN and its emphasis on “rivalries,” it’s essentially saying to Clemson and Florida State, “Hey, ACC football-oriented schools! You’re not as important in our eyes as ACC basketball (read the network’s obsession with UNC and Duke) or our football brethren in the SEC.” If both Clemson and FSU have to languish in the ACC for another 14 years with no more than token rights raises, their fan bases will be furious.
LikeLike
The ACCN, much like the Big Ten Network, focuses heavily on its own content. Naturally, it seems a bit distorted, because the best football games aren’t on there. But you shouldn’t read too much into it. Even in the basketball-heavy ACC, football drives most of the revenue.
If both Clemson and FSU have to languish in the ACC for another 14 years with no more than token rights raises, their fan bases will be furious.
The fans of all 14 football members should be unhappy, because they are all underpaid. Granted, Clemson and FSU have options in other conferences, whereas most of the others do not. But the ACC’s ruinous TV deal harms everyone, not just those two schools.
The comment from the FSU president is still dangling out there. What on earth could he have meant?
LikeLike
Nah, they’re not all underpaid. FSU definitely is. And Clemson. Probably Miami? But in the free market, nobody else would actually get (much) more. And Wake (probably BC too) would get much less.
LikeLike
I am comparing the ACC in its current deal to the same ACC if they had not fallen for the Swofford swindle. I realize that if the schools went their separate ways, many would make less money. That is true in all conferences.
LikeLike
I just thought of something: The SEC may want to expand for prestige/basketball purposes (taking FSU and Clemson to pay for UNC and UVa)
BUT
ESPN definitely wants to keep the ACC alive as is. It has zero interest in their nice ACC deal being blown to smithereens.
and
the SEC is all-in now with the WWL
That does create an opening for the B10 to add both FSU and Miami. But timing would still be a big question.
LikeLike
I’d question whether that changes anything: FSU will talk to the SEC after getting a Big Ten offer in the early 2030s.
Schools like FSU and UNC know they’ll get offers from both conferences. They’ll choose which they want and speak to that conference much like Texas, OU, and USC.
The blunt reality is that everyone in the ACC will be trying to talk to the Big Ten and/or SEC in the early 2030s. Pac-12 schools will likely make another push for the Big Ten if they don’t get in this decade.
LikeLike
One potential result of NBC’s costly new Big Ten deal…
https://deadline.com/2022/08/nbc-could-give-third-hour-of-primetime-back-to-affiliates-1235101078/
NBC considering saving money by dropping programming for the 10:00 PM ET time slot and giving it to the affiliates to fill. Potential options are syndicated programming, earlier news, or possibly even an earlier airing of The Tonight Show (and, yes, people are already telling “Bring Back Leno” jokes).
LikeLike
(And obviously, the Big Ten deal would be only one factor among many if NBC goes this route)
LikeLike
It makes sense, they’re prioritizing the weekend and times of day where live programming like news or morning shows rules the airwaves.
They’re upgrading their Saturday significantly by guaranteeing a night game throughout the cfb season to match their Sunday night.
ND game -> Big Ten pregame/ND post-game-> SNL is a very powerful upgrade to just having 7 or 8 ND home games and only the night games led to SNL.
LikeLike
From today’s NY Times
Does Watching College Football on TV Have to Be So Miserable?
The corporations that control these broadcasts know: It can still be hugely lucrative to provide an experience that fans come to despise.
It is, let’s say, 8:43 p.m. on a Saturday. You are watching a college football game that is taking place at this hour despite being played in the Midwest in November, and the people in the stadium, which is not entirely full, look very cold and a little put off. The season schedule said kickoff was at 8 p.m., but it didn’t actually take place until 8:18. In the 25 minutes that have elapsed, play has been interrupted for three commercial breaks. Each advertisement shown during these breaks has been for pickup trucks.
The announcers have just begun a discussion of your team’s head coach, and his alleged inability to win “big games,” which is indistinguishable from identical discussions held by other announcers in each of the team’s nine previous contests.
You will continue watching this broadcast until it ends at 11:47.
Why? Because you are a college football aficionado and the bond between you and the team you support is an idiosyncratic one that is hard to extinguish.
In an era in which television ratings are in decline, the aggregate live-audience demand to which you contribute — some teams can bring in more than three million viewers every week, on average — is valuable for the multinational corporation broadcasting the game. This demand lasts through the season, which begins for most teams this weekend and runs through, if you are lucky, January of next year. It is not necessarily affected by the quality and care with which the broadcast has been produced.
You are a case study in the consolidation of modern media: It can still be hugely lucrative to provide you with an experience that, in many respects, you find insulting.
As both a professional journalist and an expert on watching college football, I felt obligated to explore such matters while researching my forthcoming book “The Hot Seat,” from which this article is adapted. The book tells the story of overenthusiastic modern college football fandom through the 2021 Michigan Wolverines (average weekly viewership: 4.74 million) and their divisive coach, Jim Harbaugh. I took my responsibilities so seriously that I often asked my wife to mind our three children during the team’s games so I could observe and consider the state of televised sports with the clearest possible mind. (She often declined.)
I also spoke about the subject with John Kosner, a former ESPN executive who helped oversee college sports at the network in his 21 years at the company, owned by Disney, and now runs his own sports media business. Mr. Kosner grew up in New York and became a fan of college football because it was, in his words, “so different from anything I experienced.”
But what college football is now is far from what he first started watching regularly in the 1970s. There is much more of it on television, for one thing. And each school and conference wants, understandably, to maximize its earning potential in a competitive environment. (A 1984 Supreme Court ruling forbade the N.C.A.A. from single-handedly controlling its members’ TV rights.) It’s an arms race of commercial breaks.
“You’re making deals at the demand of these conferences and of the media companies you work for and it’s a competitive arena,” Mr. Kosner said. “You might decide, ‘Gee, this is terrible. We shouldn’t do this.’ But if you decide not to make a deal, someone else is going to make that deal.”
This is true. Big Ten games have been broadcast on ESPN and ABC for years, but the parties were unable to come to terms on a renewal of their relationship. The seven-year, $7 billion agreement the conference announced this month is with Fox, CBS and NBC instead. Disney still dominates college football, having televised 41 of 2021’s 44 postseason bowl games. In 2020, it secured exclusive future rights to broadcast the Southeastern Conference, whose teams are more successful on the field than the Big Ten’s and almost as popular.
“What happens is the conference is saying, ‘OK, we want more for our rights, or we want $25 million for the championship game,’” Mr. Kosner said. “And the answer frequently is, ‘We want to expand the commercial for that.’ And they say, ‘OK.’”
In response to questions about how long games now take — up to four hours with all the scheduled breaks — and whether this tangibly affects the live experience, an ESPN spokeswoman noted that many factors affect the length of a game, including the style of play, replay reviews and advertising. “Commercial breaks are a standard part of every televised sport and are a major element of media companies recouping their significant investment,” the spokeswoman said.
Michigan’s 2021 season was unexpectedly redemptive, but in the years prior the team’s supporters were subject to relentless, hurtful reminders on game broadcasts that, as head coach, Mr. Harbaugh had never beaten Ohio State, had a poor record against elite teams in general, and had failed to win a Big Ten championship. A Tampa-based sports TV expert, former Deadspin editor and archivist named Timothy Burke helped me compile transcripts of 43 Michigan football broadcasts aired between 2018 and 2021; there were at least 31 comments about Mr. Harbaugh’s not having beaten Ohio State in the file, and I excluded the actual games against Ohio State from my search.
Coach Harbaugh’s purported overratedness was a favorite subject not just during games but also on ESPN’s original programming. One of the network’s college football pundits, Paul Finebaum, has described him as “the most overpaid coach in college football history,” “stunningly embarrassing,” “an idiot,” “a colossal failure” and “a total fraud.” As Mr. Finebaum noted with enthusiasm, until last season, Michigan had never made the College Football Playoff — the four-team championship system that began in 2014, to which ESPN has exclusive TV rights.
Mr. Finebaum wasn’t the only person on ESPN from whom one heard about teams that had succeeded or failed by making or not making the College Football Playoff on ESPN. According to an article in The Athletic, the C.F.P. was mentioned 27 times during one three-hour December 2020 episode of “College GameDay,” the network’s flagship news and discussion show for the sport. Nine promos for the Playoff ran during a 2021 bowl game I happened to watch. (Fine: It was the Cheez-It Bowl. I watched the entire Cheez-It Bowl.)
But what recourse do fans have? ESPN is increasingly the only game in town, which reflects the hollowing out and nationalization of the media more broadly.
Daily newspaper circulation in the United States has fallen to 24 million from 62 million in the past 50 years, according to the Pew Research Center. There were about 80,000 newsroom employees in the country combined between newspapers and the internet in 2008, according to Pew, and by 2020, that number fell to 49,000.
In the athletic realm, Sports Illustrated has been controlled since 2019 by a company that has variously called itself TheMaven, Maven and The Arena Group, and whose central project as owner of the magazine seems to have been to attach its brand name to team-specific sites run by individuals who don’t necessarily have journalism training. (“College football is on fast approach,” begins a recent post on one of those sites.)
ESPN, for its part, employs some of the best reporters and commentators in the industry, but is cutting them at an alarming rate. About 100 newsroom contributors were terminated in a single day in 2017, and more were dropped during the pandemic.
One way ESPN fills its schedule now is with so-called hot takes: This is the five hours of weekday broadcasts filled with talking heads — opinionated journalists and ex-players — airing their hyperbolic and provocative views.
Fox Sports — which is part of the Murdoch-controlled Fox Corporation — is nominally a competitor of ESPN’s, but it may be more accurately described as an imitator. About five years ago, the company laid off nearly all its writers and reporters and hired away a number of ESPN talking heads and the top producer of ESPN’s talk shows. Fox’s lineup can feature six daily hours of the discussion (i.e. argument) format.
One of the top ESPN-to-Fox personalities is a longtime radio host named Colin Cowherd, who once noted, in an almost admirably honest interview with Bryan Curtis of The Ringer, that “in my business, being absolutely, absurdly wrong occasionally is a wonderful thing.” He also said he constantly tells one of his friends in the industry that “there’s no money in right,” and concluded a rumination about whether he’d been wrong about the subject of that day’s show — his accusation that a particular quarterback didn’t prepare enough for games — by asking, “Who cares?”
Wrong on purpose is not necessarily a bad strategy. Opinion stories are disproportionately represented at the top of news sites’ most-shared lists, and internal Facebook memos made public in the fall of 2021 revealed that the company had been rewarding outside content that users reacted to with the “angry face” emoji with better placement in news feeds. Executives and producers further emphasize characters and story lines they believe will be especially divisive: Tim Tebow, LeBron James and whether he chokes or is better than Michael Jordan, the Dallas Cowboys in general, and so on. “I was told specifically, ‘You can’t talk enough Tebow,’” the pundit Doug Gottlieb said after leaving ESPN in 2012.
Disney knows the value of a captive, excitable audience — in addition to its sports rights, it owns the Star Wars universe, Marvel comic book characters and Pixar, among other things. Disney’s profits jumped 50 percent in 2021. The financial information firm S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates that ESPN makes more than $8 a month from each of its nearly 100 million cable subscribers; it estimates that the most lucrative cable channel that doesn’t show sporting events, Fox News, makes about $2. There are 16 scheduled commercial breaks in national college football broadcasts, which can last as long as four minutes each.
Curious as to whether this feeling of oppression by a cultural monopoly might be addressed by the kind of legal remedies more typically associated with companies that make steel beams and computer software, I spoke to a University of Michigan law professor and antitrust expert named Daniel Crane.
He was open to the idea that my lengthy complaints about commercials and hot takes were evidence of “quality degradation,” that being one of the typical consequences for consumers of a monopolistic market. (The others are rising prices, diminished innovation and reduced output. Mr. Crane, for the record, says that if he’s not at a Michigan game in person he usually listens on the radio.)
But he cautioned that simply being a monopoly doesn’t mean anything has to change. “Unless you can show that they have obtained or maintained their monopoly through anticompetitive means,” he said — and despite the allegations mentioned above, no litigant or regulator has formally done that — “it’s just kind of too bad. ”
What’s more, he added, the law doesn’t really care that to fans of a particular team, changing the channel to watch another game isn’t the same as switching to a different brand of dish soap.
Reporting which preceded the Big Ten’s recent contract suggested that college administrators had themselves become uneasy with the amount of control that ESPN and Disney had over their sport. Whether this will ameliorate the quality degradation remains to be seen. Certainly none of the news releases about the deal that I have read mentioned anything about reducing the duration of commercial breaks.
Is this a silly thing to worry about? Yes and no. On the one hand, college football is not as materially crucial of an issue as, to take two examples, climate change and cancer. On the other, like all cultural narratives, highbrow and low, it has an intangible but foundational importance to the lives of those who use it to define their social communities and to explain their personal origins and values — to understand how life works, basically.
Karl Marx held that alienation is the condition people experience when they have no autonomy over something personally or socially meaningful to them because it is subject to the power and incentives of accumulated capital. I believe I embody the concept, as so defined by Marx, when I am watching five to eight consecutive commercials 16 times during a college football broadcast so that Disney shareholders and Rupert Murdoch might benefit.
Mr. Crane’s advice to unhappy viewers, informed by the success that European soccer fans had in killing a consolidated “Super League” proposal in 2021 by exerting pressure through political channels, was to pursue activism at the local level — to create a headache for university presidents, regents and others who actually have the leverage to tell a TV network to cool it.
But what makes the situation tricky is that fans have an incentive to want their schools to sell out too. The essence of college football’s hold on its audience is that it asserts a particular school, state or region’s status and relevance in a way that no other activity, even any other sport, can.
To choose not to have the financial resources other schools might be availing themselves of, to walk away from the prime-time slot, would be contrary to the entire enterprise. I do a great deal of whining about announcers, but when Fox analyst Joel Klatt said (to Colin Cowherd!) that the atmosphere during
When I spoke with Mr. Kosner, the former ESPN executive, he recounted the stakes of a Thanksgiving 1971 game between Nebraska and Oklahoma that he remembered watching. “It had everything,” he said. “It was everything you would imagine from middle of the country, a super-rivalry between states.” (I think he is right that a football game between Oklahoma and Nebraska would have been the exact conceptual opposite of 1970s New York City.) “That game doesn’t happen anymore because Nebraska chose to go to the Big Ten,” he said wistfully.
Of course, as he recognized, the reason Nebraska joined the Big Ten was so it could reap the rewards of consolidating its brand with those of other national draws like Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State. That choice was offered to the school by executives like John Kosner, and was accepted enthusiastically. Nebraska averaged 2.29 million viewers a week last season, and there’s no going back.
LikeLike
The ’71 Nebraska/Oklahoma game was one of the best I ever saw.
By the way, this quote looks like more than fair use.
LikeLike
Slightly off-topic: Can someone explain to me how a head coach (e.g. – Scott Frost) can be brilliant at a non-P5 school and then completely incompetent at his very own P5 alma mater? He is just one example of many, but probably the most striking because his 13-0 Central Florida team looked almost invincible.
Some coaches win no matter where they go (at least at the collegiate level): Bear Bryant, Jerry Claiborne, Lou Holtz, Steve Spurrier, Nick Saban, Jim Harbaugh, Bobby Petrino, Chris Petersen, and Mike Leach come to mind. But then you see Rick Neuheisel, Ty Willingham, Scott Frost, and Willie Taggart and say WTF?
LikeLike
I don’t minimize Frost’s 13–0 season, because you don’t go undefeated without doing something right. But in his only other season at UCF, he went 6–7. Then, he went to Nebraska he has gone 4–8, 5–7, 3–5, and 5–9. As the years pass, his magical UCF season looks more like the answer to the S.A.T. question, “Which of these things is unlike the others?”
Willie Taggart is another guy who had one really great season that was not typical of his career average. Ty Willingham is similar: just two or three very good seasons out of 14 as a head coach.
Neuheisel is a bit harder to figure. His 21–29 in four seasons at UCLA was quite a bit worse than his combined 66–30 in eight seasons at Colorado and Washington. However, his UCLA stint came after a six-year gap out of college football, which might be relevant somehow.
LikeLike
Some things work at FCS or G5 but not at P5. Jim Donnan was great at Marshall. But he struggled at Georgia. Plays that worked at Marshall just didn’t work with SEC speed on defense. Similarly, Bryan Hartsin did great as an OC at Boise. But then he went to Texas and, while he may have done fine vs. OU in the Fiesta Bowl, when you see Hartsin’s trick plays regularly, they often blow up against P5 competition. I don’t know how many times Hartsin turned a 1st and goal from the 5 into a 2nd and goal from the 15 with a double or triple reverse option pass.
Similarly, Gerry Faust was a legend in HS, but a .500 coach at Notre Dame.
And sometimes, its just random. Maybe they find magic one year, but can’t repeat it.
LikeLike
They went 13-0 under Frost, then 12-1 (only loss in bowl to LSU) the next year under Heupel, then 10-3 (all losses by 3 or less)the year after that. The 2 best years happened with McKenzie Milton at QB. Maybe they just had a great group of players and the chemistry worked.
At NE, Frost doesn’t have the chance to out-athlete a lot of his opponents like he did at UCF. He may be struggling to recruit with his move from FL to NE. Most of his assistants didn’t have experience in the plains either.
LikeLike
Question for the media mavens:
Paramount Global is the least-constrained when it comes to moving all of its content to streaming, given that its CBS broadcast network content is much higher-value than its cable network content and it doesn’t have a Comcast-like conflict of interest. At the right price, Paramount should be relatively indifferent to whether its content appears on a CBS local affiliate versus Paramount+. And that appears to be driving the company’s current strategy – which is very different than the strategies of its peers.
All of the other owners of broadcast networks have tighter constraints. NBC’s parent appears to have an over-riding conflict of interest to preserve cable-TV bundles. Disney’s ESPN (and perhaps other) content benefits from subsidization by non-users in the traditional pay-TV bundle. Fox’s cable networks apparently do as well since that company clearly sees streaming as uneconomic.
It seems to me that Paramount’s trade-off is to forego retransmission fees and local affiliate ownership/rental economics in exchange for directly charging consumers for all of its content.
At what service prices does CBS become indifferent to having its content distributed through Paramount+ versus distributing through local affiliates and traditional pay-TV bundles? Is it the current pricing model minus all of the promos it currently offers, which is $5/mo. for ad-light content except for the live TV stuff, & $10/mo. for ad-free except for the live TV stuff? If higher, how much higher??
LikeLike
All 4 have chosen very different strategies; that’s really what makes this era of media fascinating.
In prior eras, they chose much more similar strategies: each merged with tv/movie studios and tried to bundle everything: OTA broadcast + cable channels + movies.
Now you have Paramount operating as a free radical of sorts and trying to go directly at Netflix/Disney+.
NBCUniversal’s chosen a very conservative strategy that’s basically a “wait and see” approach with Peacock. Obviously this is being directed in part by Brian Roberts and the cable execs at the top of the Comcast structure, but they’re basically mostly dipping their toes into streaming and trying to exact as much value as they can from broadcast/cable while they can.
Disney’s going for a hybrid strategy that’s aggressive on streaming with their studios pumping tons of content onto Disney+ (Marvel/Lucasfilm leading that charge) while trying to gradually lift ESPN+ as ESPN raises its fees to try to counter sub losses.
FOX went for the “anti-“streaming approach of focusing on live content meaning news+sports by dumping their studios off to Disney and the RSNs to Sinclair.
Warner Bros Discovery doesn’t have an OTA broadcast channel but is basically all in on trying to convert all its cable nets into a streaming bundle.
Disney and NBCUniversal are the two largest so it’s worth keeping that in mind; they also have theme park divisions that give them balance sheet heft and protect them from changes in media markets.
The OTA owners all recognize the value of live sports; its why they’re all in on the NFL and cfb as well as other sports. Paramount’s lined up a lot of sports deals of late as well.
But they all have different needs: keep in mind Paramount’s got the youngest audience because their most important nets are Nickelodeon/MTV/BET/etc. Those audiences are bleeding the most to YouTube/TikTok and they do have the strongest incentive to chase their audience into streaming.
NBCU and FOX are incentivized to try to move as slowly as possible because of their corporate structure; especially FOX being focused on live content.
Reality though is there will be winners and losers and lots more mergers as the losers end up scrambling to try to become winners.
LikeLike
With respect to WBD, your assessment is not quite right. New management plans to be agnostic, to the extent possible, on how to distribute content. Where content ends up will reflect their estimation of how value can be maximized. Hence the reintroduction of theatrical windows for movies. And with respect to TBS and TNT, their sports homes, I think they plan to ride it out with the traditional pay-TV bundles for as long as possible – just like ESPN and Fox.
The strategies seem to be mostly saying that non-live content is best monetized via theatrical releases + streaming, while live content needs to stay put where it has been. But the fact that Paramount will continue to simulcast live content both OTA and through Paramount+, and Comcast now following – at least with sports content – is intriguing to me.
Finally, I question Disney’s strategy of trying to force consumers to buy the whole bundle of Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ unless they put ABC onto Hulu and ESPN onto ESPN+. We shall see how the current bundle works out.
LikeLike
I agree with respect to theatrical releases going “backwards” in a sense for WBD, but outside of that, I’m skeptical on how platform agnostic they can be.
Reality is, WBD is the closest thing in media to a linear version of Netflix. They have the lowest exposure to sports of the majors (no football) and it’s almost been an afterthought in their earnings calls despite having basketball exposure.
WBD in the US at least is a scripted + unscripted media business. That’s what their content is mostly, but that’s exactly what Netflix is as well.
The big difference I suppose is premium/big budget movies; Netflix doesn’t really do that because that doesn’t make sense in streaming. There’s low ROI to that without the theatrical window.
It’ll be interesting to follow, but a lot of the majors’ strategies won’t work. In 10 or 20 years, it’s not at all clear what will be left of the bundle and those that didn’t manage to make the leap to streaming are going to be poor businesses like Dish and DirecTV right now.
LikeLike
One thing is for sure to me: the price of the sum of the streaming bundles from Disney, Paramount+, Peacock, and Fox (if they ever offer one) need to be below the price of YouTube TV (currently $65/mo.) – especially since they don’t include all of the content in YTTV’s current bundle (e.g. – AMC, TBS/TNT). I would think the economics would work for these companies at this level of pricing, assuming they can create “stickiness”, even if we assume that YTTV’s service is no better than break-even.
Netflix and WBD = “add-on” services, same as now.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson has a series of tweets about Thursday night games. Thursday games are not a new idea, but historically they were mostly non-P5 teams, as the major conferences didn’t want to go head-to-head against the NFL. This year, there are some P5 Thursday games in weeks the NFL plays, including a Big Ten game: Illinois hosts Chattanooga on Thursday, 9/22. Maybe they feel more emboldened about scheduling that, given that the NFL package moved to Amazon.
Thompson said he could foresee a major conference selling a Thursday night package, assuming they could work out the scheduling. Unlike the NFL, college teams generally require a bye the week before they play on a Thursday.
LikeLike
“Major conference”. In other words, the Pac or B12, desperate for any incremental revenue.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 has been playing primetime Thursday night games on ESPN for at least a decade – albeit not every single week.
LikeLike
Actually there were a lot of Big East and ACC games on TH night—until the NFL moved in. That’s when they started looking at Friday nights where the NFL isn’t allowed to go.
LikeLike
Matt Brown on the Oregon/Big Ten meeting
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/conference-realignment-explainer-big-ten-oregon-tv-markets/
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-expansion-scenarios
Is the B10 having buyer’s remorse?
I heard a wild story. Maybe you did, too. It goes like this — the Big Ten Conference presidents didn’t love it when ESPN wasn’t part of its announced $1.25 billion-a-year media rights package. They’d grown accustomed to being promoted by the worldwide leader’s propaganda machine.
The tale goes that the presidents were giddy over the windfall created by their new deal with FOX, NBC and CBS, but were supposedly left wringing their hands and wondering how not being a partner with ESPN might affect the Big Ten brand. When it comes to rankings, perception, and inclusion in a soon-to-be expanded and crazy-lucrative College Football Playoff, ESPN controls a big chunk of the narrative.
* Add four more Pac-12 schools?
* Create a new Big Ten division in the Pacific Time Zone?
* Shop that to ESPN as part of a new tier of programming?
I’ve been told (and heard) that story in a variety of ways for a couple of weeks now. I did some digging around, talked with some consultants, conference insiders, athletic directors, and keep coming back to one thing — it makes almost no sense. Not if you understand the nuances of programming, know media rights negotiations, and trust what ESPN president Burke Magnus said last week.
…
Why might the Big Ten presidents be anxious about the loss of ESPN as a partner?
We all know the power of ESPN’s platform. College Football Game Day is a Saturday-morning machine, distributing national narratives and skewing the day’s conversation. Having that element on your side is a massive benefit. The SEC knows what I’m talking about.
I asked Bob Thompson, the former president of FOX Sports Networks, what he made of the story that has been circulating for a couple of weeks. Is it possible the Big Ten presidents had buyer’s remorse and now want ESPN as a partner?
He said, “As long as that negotiation took, I find it hard to believe that the university presidents didn’t know that ESPN wasn’t going to be involved prior to the announcement. If they had problems with that then they certainly would have been brought up at that point. This was a huge decision for the conference going forward and not one that would have been made without the presidents being made aware of all of the particulars.”
LikeLike
Canzano repeats the story I have seen elsewhere: that the Big Ten was eager to be rid of ESPN, and in the end, made “an offer that was so unattractive, it knew it would walk.”
LikeLike
Obviously, there’s no way to prove this but I’ve been almost certain that the only reason this was possible is the success of Big Noon Kickoff and the Texas/OU+USC/UCLA moves.
Those two factors more than anything are why the Big Ten could walk away from ESPN.
Narratives matter to an extent and yes ESPN will have a great say in shaping CFB narratives even after the playoff is expanded and brings in more media partners.
But in a Power 2 world, can you really ignore the conference with all the power teams outside the south? Maybe in 2008, the Big Ten could be ignored to an extent, but we’re not in that AQ6 kind of world. 2 conferences control all the highly viewed games now.
And even if you did, does it matter when Big Noon Kickoff will be at a Big Ten location every week in front of likely the top quality noon game?
Sunday to Friday is important, but GameDay was the real ace that ESPN had to control college football. As long as that monopoly existed, you had to be on ESPN.
Now with a separate and near equal center of gravity on FOX to start Saturdays, you can walk away from ESPN.
I don’t think this was possible in 2008. But buyers remorse doesn’t make sense in 2022. This is the obvious and logical media package for a Big Ten moving to 16 teams.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the obvious and logical media package for a Big Ten moving to 16 teams.
I wish I could be so sure of that. It is a strategy that is brilliant if it works, but could also backfire. Sure, Fox’s pregame has made great strides, but it is still the clear #2 over most of the season, and from Sunday to Friday Fox has got nuthin’.
Let’s say it is true (as many sources have reported) that the Big Ten gave ESPN an F.U. offer. Had I been running it, I would have done the opposite: bend over backwards to have at least some games on ESPN, even if the three main packages were the ones they sold to Fox, CBS, and NBC.
LikeLike
Yeah there’s undeniably huge risk in this strategy, and it’s going to be impossible to tell whether this has worked until we see FOX/CBS/NBC/FS1/BTN ratings in 2024 and beyond.
But I just think for this contract it makes too much sense. You have the initial/early excitement of USC/UCLA switching conferences and things just line up too well.
And as far as GameDay goes, I think Corso could turn out to be a huge liability.
As somebody that’s taken care of grandparents at old ages, seeing him out there just makes me cringe. I wouldn’t have let my grandpa be out there in that state before he passed a couple years ago, and it comes across to me as disturbing seeing him there.
May not have an impact but time will tell.
LikeLike
I think Corso could turn out to be a huge liability.
The new contracts start in 2023. I strongly suspect this is Corso’s last year.
LikeLike
Yeah, ultimately this is a 7 year deal for a reason; in part due to the nature of changes in media and in part because there is risk to the upside/downside.
If this isn’t working as well as the Big Ten thinks, by 2028-2029 there will be talk of ESPN coming back into the fold. And further expansion could figure into that, different windows being looked at (perhaps non-exclusivity at times, not just a night window).
Basketball is something to watch as much or more than football. Big Ten has had most of the high rated games in hoops for years. If basketball ratings fall off for the Big Ten (and ESPN?) there will be talk of getting back together.
LikeLike
I think ESPN is now far more at risk than the BiG when it comes to college football. If you are a BiG fan, can make an antenna work, but merely keep an eye on the SEC and Clemson/FSU to follow the race for the CFP, you now have much less need to subscribe to ESPN. OTA, you will be able to get the top 3 BiG games every week, ND home games, and the top ACC/SEC games – which generally will be shown on ABC.
Above the Mason-Dixon line, ESPN will have almost nothing must-have to offer the northern half of the country – or SoCal for that matter. Are there really enough high-quality ACC & SEC games to maintain ESPN’s past appeal?
This is why ESPN is now talking regionalization and rivalries, and why Fox has a real opportunity with it cable sports networks
LikeLike
Canzano and his sources seem to feel that the late-night package simply would not be very appealing. The most desirable games would be plucked by other media partners who rank higher in the contractual pecking order, leaving ESPN with a steady diet of mediocrity. It’s obviously worth something, but not a lot.
He is suggesting that the first choice of Pac-12 games, which ESPN is likely to have if the league stays together, is better than the fourth choice of Big Ten games, which is the best it can get in a B1G-after-dark package.
He is reporting from a Pac-12 perspective, so take that for what it is worth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if the Big Ten gets another 2-4 teams from the Pac-12, then “first choice” of Pac-12 games probably is no better in any week and likely much much worse than whatever Big Ten Pacific Time Zone game is available after the networks do their choices.
Or is this coming from a prospecting of trying to sell a package of late night games using just USC and UCLA home games? If so, that could only be a handful of games, not a full season’s worth. You’d need to pick up at least 2 more west coast teams to be able to sell a full season of “after dark” games.
LikeLike
I think Canzano is saying that if ESPN could influence the decision, it would prefer that the Pac stay together, because it is better to have the first choice in the Pac than the fourth choice in the Big Ten.
I do not believe the Big Ten is trying to sell a late-night package of late-night games using just USC and UCLA. If the Big Ten stays at 16, then I believe most of those schools’ home games will be in the late afternoon and early evening windows, with perhaps the occasional graveyard shift game on BTN or Peacock.
LikeLike
SideshowBob: “Or is this coming from a prospecting of trying to sell a package of late night games using just USC and UCLA home games? If so, that could only be a handful of games, not a full season’s worth. You’d need to pick up at least 2 more west coast teams to be able to sell a full season of “after dark” games.”
If you sit down and look at the schedules and the number of games needed, you can see that the Big Ten could indeed sell a package of late night games using just USC and UCLA home games.
This year UCLA has three OOC games at home. With a 9-game conference schedule that would average 4.5 home Big Ten games but since one of those will always be USC, let’s call it 5.
USC has two OOC games at home and an away game at ND. The Trojans will also have a 9-game conference schedule that would average 4.5 home Big Ten games but since one of those will always be UCLA, let’s call it 5.
That’s 15 games in LA. Now, I readily acknowledge that the ND-USC game isn’t going to be on Late Night so that game wasn’t included. Likewise, the tOSU, MI and PS games at USC and UCLA won’t be on Late Night so each of those with a 50% frequency of play plus a 50% frequency of playing on the West Coast is minus 1.5 or 13.5 games per year that USC and UCLA could play Late Night every year.
That’s not quite 14 but it’s close enough that the Big Ten could pull it off without adding additional schools on the West Coast.
https://uclabruins.com/sports/football/schedule/2021
https://usctrojans.com/sports/football/schedule/2021
LikeLike
You are of course correct that Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State at either school, their game against each other, and ND at USC, are not going to be graveyard shift games.
I believe a game like Wisconsin, Nebraska, or Iowa at USC or UCLA would quite often be the third-best (if not better) game of the week, and therefore, would more likely get picked up before ESPN gets to the 4th pick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marc, it doesn’t have to be USC or UCLA. With a little creative scheduling, the Big Ten could easily provide 2-3 more games a fillers for Late Night on the West Coast.
This year ND is playing a neutral site game vs BYU in Las Vegas. Obviously, Nebraska or Minnesota could do the same. Or that Illinois-Wyoming game could have been neutral site at Mile High at 7:30 PT. Or Air Force-Purdue at Mile High. Or Wisconsin-Boise St at Las Vegas. And of course there is also SDS-Indiana in LA or ASU-Rutgers in Phoenix.
Look, it’s just silly to think that the Big Ten would need to add 2-4 more West Coast schools to fill in 2-3 games for a Late Night schedule. It could be done very easily.
LikeLike
Colin, few of the games you mention are worthy of a #4 pick. Most of the games you cite will belong on BTN or FS2 (if it still exists). ESPN will not pay enough for this kind of inventory to make it worthwhile to BiG.
LikeLike
Redwood: “Colin, few of the games you mention are worthy of a #4 pick.”
Redwood, we are not talking about a #4 pick. We are talking about #6 picks and #8 picks. Don’t you understand that?
UCLA vs Purdue will not be a #4 pick ahead of the tOSU/USC/Michigan/Penn State/MSU/Wisconsin/Nebraska games being played that week. Look at a composite Big Ten schedule for any week of the season, then add in USC and UCLA.
Honest to God, what does it take to get it into your heads? Are you in denial?
LikeLike
Honest to God, what does it take to get it into your heads? Are you in denial?
We hear you. It seems (to some of us) that these are undesirable games for which the Big Ten would earn not much money, and a lot of Eastern schools would be screwed. We all understand mathematically that it could be done.
LikeLike
Yeah, the B10 leaving ESPN will hurt ESPN more than it will hurt B10 football. When Fox has the biggest game of the week (or possibly even just at noon), Big Noon Kickoff will do better than Gameday. Just look at the past weekend where Big Noon Kickoff destroyed Gameday in the ratings.
B10 basketball is another matter. I suppose it’s a good thing far fewer people watch the regular season games.
LikeLike
And 4.4m viewers at 12:30pm EDT for Northwestern is all you need to know regarding why Nebraska was a good add to the BiG. . . Impressive.
LikeLike
I agree with Canzano’s feedback that the late night package for the B1G was not likely to work. Why would ESPN give the B1G nearly as much as the entire value of the 10 team PAC now? ESPN could just keep the PAC and worry about it from there.
Particularly when ESPN has the ACC and SEC.
They could help the PAC by getting the ACC and even SEC to throw in a decent after dark game a couple of times a year and keep the value in house.
For that matter, FOX could in theory try to pick up the PAC. I do not think that this is overly likely, but not impossible.
This is also why I have never thought that Oregon or Cal added any value to the B1G. And Washington might, but? Finally Stanford. I think that the B1G would want Stanford just because.
Maybe FOX needs to pay a little attention to holding onto some Big 12 rights, so ESPN does not control the broadcasting of the other four leagues.
LikeLike
One potential flaw in Canzano’s analysis is that he’s looking at the late-night window in isolation. Practically all of us agree that this does not move the needle enough. But it is not the only revenue lever either. There’s also a potential streaming package, post-season, BTN carriage, and so forth.
LikeLike
I have to believe that the B1G looked into all of those things before finalizing with USC/UCLA. None of those economic issues have changed appreciably in the last year or so while the LA schools were being discussed and signed.
I do not believe that there has been any analysis by anyone that makes any of the four remaining west coast schools nearly as valuable as the new B1G per team contract.
Also, as has been discussed here more than once, all of the conversations regarding easier travel and travel partners really relates to the LA schools. For the other 14 schools travel is much easier without a six (or even four) team west coat wing.
Finally, I know that most of you disagree with me, but I still believe that USC/UCLA have had major input into adding new west coast schools. They had the leverage since these things were discussed before then joined the league. Not at all like TAMU and Missouri who have no use for UT, but were not likely to quit the SEC over the addition.
The rumor that USC did not want Oregon and Washington playing in LA makes sense. Make it much harder for those two to get top players away from USC or UCLA.
I do not know whether SDSU will help OR and WA recruit in LA, but if it does they will be recruiting for a diminished PAC, not for the B1G.
Let the B1G digest two west coast schools and see how things look in a few years.
LikeLike
I have to believe that the B1G looked into all of those things before finalizing with USC/UCLA. None of those economic issues have changed appreciably in the last year or so while the LA schools were being discussed and signed.
According to the news stories, the Big Ten was pretty far along with its new media deals when USC came knocking. So, it’s not something they spent a year on. USC/UCLA wanted confidentiality—and that gets a lot harder the more people you are talking to. So it strikes me as believable that they took USC/UCLA, because those two were no-brainers, with the others to be determined at a later date.
I still believe that USC/UCLA have had major input into adding new west coast schools. They had the leverage since these things were discussed before then joined the league. Not at all like TAMU and Missouri who have no use for UT, but were not likely to quit the SEC over the addition.
Imagine for a moment that the Big Ten wants more Pacific schools. What leverage do USC/UCLA have? I contend they have very little. If they insist on being the only Pac additions, and the Big Ten refuses to commit to that, their only option is to go back to the Pac-12, where they would make half as much. Just as TAMU and Missouri would not quit over this issue, USC/UCLA would not refuse to join. A more self-destructive decision would be difficult to imagine.
LikeLike
The problem is that you made the huge assumption that the B1G wants more west coast schools, none of which schools make economic sense to the league. If the B1G immediately told USC/UCLA we will only take a minimum of four west coast schools, and you two are not invited alone, that would be a huge deal. It does not appear to have happened – at least not yet and not without ND.
There is absolutely zero to support the desire of the B1G to add at least two more west coast schools. If you were correct, why did the B1G not immediately add more schools? If your assumption is not correct, then there is no support for your position.
My premise is simple, if the B1G was unsure, then the LA schools’ opinions was very important. There is simply no analogy to Texas to the SEC over objections of existing schools.
Beyond that, if this is all about a west coast wing to make travel easier for USC/UCLA, why wouldn’t the LA schools not be fully entitled to say “No, Do not do us any such favors.”
LikeLike
Sounds like you missed all the reporting saying they wanted more west coast schools to make it easier for USC and UCLA. McMurphy and others have said this. Several have said the Big 10 isn’t done yet, indicating sooner rather than waiting until 2036.
LikeLike
The problem is that you made the huge assumption that the B1G wants more west coast schools, none of which schools make economic sense to the league.
No, I am not assuming that. I am saying that if the B1G wanted more schools out West, USC/UCLA would be powerless to stop them, since their only recourse would be the even worse option of slinking back to the Pac-12. If the B1G does not want more Western schools for its own economic reasons, then the (alleged, unproven) fact USC/UCLA doesn’t want them either is beside the point.
I completely agree with the consensus here that additional Western schools do not appear to make economic sense. If that analysis is correct, then it simply does not matter what USC/UCLA want.
Beyond that, if this is all about a west coast wing to make travel easier for USC/UCLA, why wouldn’t the LA schools not be fully entitled to say “No, Do not do us any such favors.”
I have never bought into the idea that the B1G would have added additional schools to mitigate travel—even had USC/UCLA actually wanted that. As others have noted, adding more Western school makes travel worse for the majority of the league.
LikeLike
bullet, I did not miss any reporting. So? I also saw the initial reporting that USC did not want Wash or OR in the B1G. Which set of reporting is true?
I have also now seen reporting that Ohio State does not want the additional western expansion. Is that true? If it is true, does anyone for one moment think that Commissioner Warren went forward with USC/UCLA without knowing the opinion of the member schools regarding expansion? It it even possible that Warren did not that Ohio State did not want further expansion beyond LA? No that is impossible.
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/ohio-state-reportedly-against-the-big-ten-expanding-more
If Rutgers or Maryland, or maybe Purdue or Indiana did not want more western expansion, perhaps Warren could ignore them. Ohio State (and other schools no doubt)? Keep in mind that more west coast schools is more and worse travel for 14 schools, without an apparent economic advantage.
So if Ohio State indicated that USC/UCLA was it for now, could the reports also be true about adding at least two and probably four more schools? Would Commissioner Warren so directly do the opposite of what Ohio State wants when the economics do not work anyway and 14 schools have travel issues.
So there are reports (I call them rumors) out there that directly contradict each other. How do you know which ones are accurate?
LikeLike
You said there is zero support that the Big 10 wanted to add more west coast schools. That is an unequivocally 100% false statement.
As for what is true, we don’t know. We have to make judgements. Multiple reliable national reporters having multiple sources within the Big 10 have said the Big 10 wants more western schools to ease travel for USC and UCLA and for their own reasons. There is confirmation that officials from Oregon and the Big 10 met in Chicago last week.
Contrast that with an old report, with no indication of the source, that USC/UCLA didn’t want Oregon (I don’t recall UW being mentioned, but its been a while so maybe they were also). And then you have today’s Wilner’s report where he says he “doesn’t feel” Ohio St. wants further expansion. Why does he “feel” that way? Did he read some message board? And Wilner has been pretty hysterical in defense of the Pac. Today he dismissed the idea of ESPN and Fox talking with the Big 12 and made himself look like an idiot, ignoring multiple national reports including from ESPN reporters. I’ve been following Wilner for a while. He’s got good sources within the Pac but has always been clueless on anything happening beyond the Rockies.
So there’s really VERY weak evidence to contradict the reports that the Big 10 is inclined to expand again soon. Even Warren indicated it was likely at some point in the next 10 years.
They may not decide to pull the trigger, but they are looking very hard at it.
LikeLike
Correction. Wilner said he “does not believe,” not that he “feels.”
That’s about as weak as you can get.
LikeLike
Washington has now met with the Big 10.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/washington-latest-pac-12-school-to-meet-with-big-ten
LikeLike
Wilner thinks Ohio St is against further expansion.
LikeLike
Don’t know why OSU specifically would have an issue with it, but Gene Smith has a lot of clout so I’m sure OSU’s opinion carries a good amount of weight. My guess is they don’t see the B10 getting too much bigger, and don’t want to act rashly with the remaining slots.
Or, perhaps there’s concern about adding too many schools from a single conference at once. The B10 prior to USC/UCLA had never taken multiple schools from the same conference. OSU might be suggesting pumping the brakes until those are integrated. Or simply that the numbers don’t indicate that it’s worth the additional headache of expansion.
LikeLike
I believe Gene Smith said he’s done if they start playing players. I guess he’s like a lot of folks who wish things wouldn’t change. Unfortunately or fortunately players are going to get paid. That’s where Warren is ahead of the game. My analogy is look out on the horizon and that small dust cloud is Warren ahead of everyone else. I think he’s looking at an NFL type model. I could see 24 teams with 6 Divisions of 4 teams or 4 Divisions of 6 teams. Just my opinion.
LikeLike
I believe Gene Smith said he’s done if they start playing players. I guess he’s like a lot of folks who wish things wouldn’t change.
Smith isn’t categorically a stick in the mud — he favors expanding the playoff, for instance. With that said, leaders of the sport have often drawn lines in the sand that were later obliterated, so I am not convinced this is an absolute no for him.
LikeLike
Marc,
I totally agree with you. Remember the yakety yak from Delaney & Sawbrick about dropping down to Div III or some such nonsense.
LikeLike
Marc,
He’s also strongly in favor of NIL. But he draws the line at straight pay for play.
He’s 66. He can afford to retire rather than deal with it if that day comes.
LikeLike
Pay for Play started with allowing players to keep Pell grants if they qualified without any offset. Then there was another $5K in cost of attendance (pizza?) money. The addition of NIL money can be $50K for most starting B10 football players with almost no limit for star players. Therefore, today’s discussion is how much to pay players vs. will players get paid. The big difference in the last 10 years vs the previous 50 is that payments to players are now larger and cross over the table. Past payments were under the table so schools could avoid probation since NCAA rules prohibited all player payments.
LikeLike
It is pretty remarkable how things have changed. Ohio State was hit with significant sanctions over the memorabilia-for-tattoos scandal. The amount of money was pocket change compared to the NIL payments Terrelle Pryor would earn today. I think the largest amount for one player (Pryor) was just $2,500. Others were as low as $150.
The Alabama text book scandal involved a total of $40,000 across hundreds of players. About 125 players received “impermissible benefits” of less than $100 each. The worst offenders received impermissible benefits less than $4,000 each. For this, Alabama vacated 21 games.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
“Don’t know why OSU specifically would have an issue with it”
What’s the upside for OSU?
Less money, fewer games against traditional opponents, more travel (OSU has more teams to travel than anyone else), fewer B10 titles by dilution, and CFB games put in bad TV windows (weeknights, late night) or on bad channels (Peacock, etc.) to get networks to pay for it. MBB games also suffer.
OSU has fewer west coast alumni than many B10 schools, too (less than 1% of recent grads in Seattle, for example), so the benefits of visiting are even less.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Less money, fewer games against traditional opponents, more travel (OSU has more teams to travel than anyone else), fewer B10 titles by dilution, and CFB games put in bad TV windows (weeknights, late night) or on bad channels (Peacock, etc.) to get networks to pay for it. MBB games also suffer.”
I don’t disagree with you (well, for everything but less B10 titles), I just question why OSU specifically is being called out here. It’s not like many of these issues wouldn’t also plague the 13 other teams. I have a hard time believing they’re all gung-ho about adding four more P12 teams and it’s only OSU pumping the brakes.
LikeLike
I just question why OSU specifically is being called out here.
It might simply be a function of who Wilner’s sources are. The statement that OSU disagrees does not mean the other 13 are in favor of expanding further.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
I was mostly thinking of fewer titles in non-CFB sports.
OSU has 36 sports. PSU is second in the B10 with 31. OSU has more travel to consider. Plus, OSU is seen as the leading voice in the B10, so they may be speaking for others.
LikeLike
I had heard a rumor that after UNL was added, UMich and OSU both told the B10 that they would not support adding another school that could challenge for the B10 football title regularly. The B10 then added RU and UMD (the B10 wanted UMD + UVa, and maybe UNC and GTech too, but none of those schools would threaten UMich and OSU’s advantages in football).
Schools _definitely_ get an alumni donation boost when they win conference titles (though that may go away when the playoff expands to 16).
It’s possible that LA/USC was just too enticing to pass up so OSU and UMich made an exception for Troy, or maybe they just aren’t as threatened by USC, which is a smaller school and private, after all, with less hardcore fan support.
It would kill adding more West Coast schools as they’re all pretty marginal candidates anyway.
The key school to look at is FSU in the 2030’s. Also Miami. Also ND. FSU may be off the table (they seem to prefer the SEC anyway). It also makes a scheduling arrangement with ND (like the deal ND currently has with the ACC except playing 8 B10 teams a year) more likely than adding ND as a full member. But would the B10 add 2 of Miami/Stanford/UVa?
It’s possible that OSU and UMich see Miami as a lesser USC (also a smaller private with a smaller hardcore fanbase, albeit in an extremely fertile recruiting area).
An 8-game arrangement with ND would pay for adding Miami and Stanford (annual games with USC and Stanford, 2 games/4 years vs. “traditional” rivals UMich, MSU, PSU, and Miami; 4 years vs the other 12 schools).
LikeLike
I had heard a rumor that after UNL was added, UMich and OSU both told the B10 that they would not support adding another school that could challenge for the B10 football title regularly.
The leadership at Michigan has turned over several times since then. Even if they said that when UNL joined, and it is only a rumor, who knows if it remains their view today? The history says that if the money is there, they will eventually accept it. But most of us are struggling to make the numbers work, so that in itself could explain why there is no further Western expansion without Notre Dame.
Delany used to say that an expansion needs to be compelling — it needs to do a lot better than just break even. The numbers I have seen so far don’t even do that.
LikeLike
Smith has also said that Ohio State needs $13 million per year for NIL, so he is not against players making money.
He has to be speaking about treating players as employees. At that point, college sports will not longer exist as we know it.
Would schools field minor league football teams? What about all other sports? Title IX?
ND and Stanford have also said that they would never have player/employees. Personally, I do not think that college football survives having players actually be employees. Would a condition of employment be scheduling classes? Taking exams? Etc.
What would the difference be between rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers or Green Bay Packers?
LikeLike
U.S. Bank (the nation’s #5 bank) is partnering with Opendorse to offer financial literacy training to athletes receiving NIL money.
NIL Cash Spurs U.S. Bank and Opendorse to Offer Financial Literacy Courses
LikeLike
Thinking about this more, seeing that every time the P2 has expanded, it’s has taken slam-dunk additive additions (other than RU & UMD which was in large part to keep PSU happy/protect the B10’s eastern flank & Mizzou, who were lucky because the SEC needed an even-number addition to pair with A&M), both the B10 and SEC may only expand to 18 in the 2030’s and pause again. Right now, only ND & FSU, probably Clemson, and maybe Miami are additive to the P2e We haven’t seen the P2 add non-clearly-additive schools except for very compelling reasons (keeping PSU happy and pairing with A&M). So what is most likely to happen in the ’30’s is that the SEC takes FSU & Clemson while the B10 adds Miami & Stanford and forms a scheduling alliance with ND (8 games/year vs. B10 opponents while still calling themselves “independent”).
Eventually, (in the 2040’s or later), the B10 _might_ expand for demographic reasons (UW, ASU, CU, maybe UVa, maybe UNC possible candidates) while the SEC _might_ expand for prestige/basketball reasons (UNC + UVa/Duke).i.ng as
LikeLike
The other pattern is that they have expanded very slowly — never more than one or two at a time.
So what is most likely to happen in the ’30’s is that the SEC takes FSU & Clemson while the B10 adds Miami & Stanford and forms a scheduling alliance with ND (8 games/year vs. B10 opponents while still calling themselves “independent”).
I am not sure how a Notre Dame scheduling alliance could be deemed “likely.” It is intriguing, for sure, but I am still weighing how plausible it is. As far as I can recall, no reliable source outside this blog is suggesting it.
LikeLike
Yes, “likely” is a matter of opinion. I think it makes sense from many angles.
We will see.
LikeLike
The thing is, if ND is willing to sign up for eight B1G games, it probably means that their ACC deal has become untenable. And if that happens, the B1G would more likely say, “full membership or nothing,” because where else can ND go? And after all, it is only a difference of one game from eight to nine.
If their ACC deal remains tenable, I think the Irish would prefer to keep that, because it gives them more flexibility, the claim of “independence” has more validity, and they play an easier schedule. In an expanded playoff, a 10–1 ND will be a shoo-in for a spot, and even 9–2 might be good enough. They are more likely to do that on a 5-game ACC schedule than an 8-game Big Ten schedule.
LikeLike
“The thing is, if ND is willing to sign up for eight B1G games, it probably means that their ACC deal has become untenable. ”
We agree there. Because their schedule if the ACC loses FSU, Clemson, & Miami is too poor (or their TV money is too poor because their schedule is too poor).
“And if that happens, the B1G would more likely say, “full membership or nothing,” ”
That assumes that, if the finances are equal, the B10 prefers ND being a full member to being an associate member in a scheduling alliance. But the B10 (specifically, OSU, UMich, and the other top dogs) may not actually want that. They may actually prefer a scheduling alliance with ND if that means capturing as much surplus value as adding ND as a full member. From a demographics, recruiting ground, alumni fundraising, and even research perspective, Miami and Stanford add more, and they are less likely to threaten for the B10 title than ND. So the B10 may actually prefer ND as an associate member rather than as a full member if it means the same extra money for existing B10 schools.
LikeLike
We agree there. Because their schedule if the ACC loses FSU, Clemson, & Miami is too poor (or their TV money is too poor because their schedule is too poor).
The other big question is if they can continue to schedule creatively on their own. The ACC as presently configured had the market power to demand 5 games. Now, let’s say the ACC survives in a weaker state, where they are still good enough to play ND in Olympic sports, but not powerful enough to still demand 5 games.
Can ND replace those games elsewhere? Since nobody (except the Big Ten) wants ND in the Big Ten, I suspect ND will have very little trouble finding attractive opponents. Every non-B1G conference will cooperate with them, because the alternatives are worse. And of course the Big Ten won’t entirely refuse to play them either, because it never has.
So, they would simply go back to scheduling the way they historically did, with 12 games they totally control. I stress, this is just one scenario.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has 7 games annually that are not committed to the ACC. This year, the only B1G team they play is tOSU, but they also play 3 PAC teams: Cal, Stanford, and USC. (Hint Hint Hint)
So, depending on how firm their future schedule is, they can still play 4 or 5 B1G teams, meet their ACC commitment, and keep long time rivals like Navy, without any formal scheduling alliance.
LikeLike
Between the 5 ACC games, Navy, USC, and Stanford, ND only has 4 games available. And 1 of them would be a home buy game and one a neutral site Shamrock Series game. So even if the Shamrock Series game is always with a B10 team, at the very most, under the current set up, ND can only play 4 B10 teams a year (counting USC in the B10). Realistically, it will be 2-3 (counting USC) at most. That’s a big difference from 8 (4 controlled by the B10, usually 3 of which would be against high profile opponents), so a big difference in how much of the ND surplus value the B10 would be able to gain.
LikeLike
…depending on how firm their future schedule is, they can still play 4 or 5 B1G teams, meet their ACC commitment, and keep long time rivals like Navy, without any formal scheduling alliance.
ND has a full schedule only out to 2023. Also, Stanford is not scheduled past 2024. With non-conference games now commonly planned a decade or more in advance, the lack of a renewal there is striking.
In recent years, ND has always scheduled 2 buy games per season. Assuming that is non-negotiable, they could play 5 ACC, 4 Big Ten, and still have room for Navy. But it would mean they never play a serious opponent outside of those two leagues. (This assumes Stanford in the Big Ten, or that they no longer play Stanford.)
For those who want to read tea leaves where there may be none, there certainly are a lot of gaps in the future ND schedules, almost as if Jack Swarbrick is not sure where they will be in 3 years. There certainly is room for them to play the Big Ten more often, as they have only 3 future home & homes scheduled that are not with the ACC or Big Ten: home Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Alabama.
LikeLike
Hmm. If you don’t count the B10, ACC, Navy, USC, Stanford, and buy games, there’s only
2024: @A&M
2025: A&M, @Arkansas
2026: NOTHING
2027: NOTHING
2028: Arkansas
2029: Bama, @USF
2030: @Bama
2031: UF, USF
2032: @UF
It also shows that as an “independent”, ND has about as much scheduling flexibility as UMich and OSU. The difference between being a member (either full or associated) of the expanded B10 (that adds Miami and Stanford) and their current arrangement is that instead of 2 games in/around the Carolinas/VA and 1 extra free game, they’d have 3-4 more games in the Midwest.
LikeLike
Thanks. I missed a few. However, it is clear they have plenty of openings, if they want to play the Big Ten more.
It also shows that as an “independent”, ND has about as much scheduling flexibility as UMich and OSU.
I agree, but that lack of flexibility is self-imposed. Outside of their 5-game ACC commitment, there are 7 games with which they can do whatever they want. They locked in 3 of the 7 with long-term contracts, but one of the 3 (Stanford) expires in a couple of years.
LikeLike
From today’s Athletic:
1. Making sense of the TV math
The Big Ten broke new ground this month with the announcement of its seven-year television deal that will be worth upward of $8 billion.
But how exactly does that math work?
Yes, the Big Ten is the richest conference, a distinction that was only enhanced by the additions of UCLA and USC. But is the league really worth that much more than the SEC?
There are a few differences between the two conferences, which have financially separated themselves from the rest of the nation by a wide margin. The first, of course, is that the Big Ten has three main broadcast partners, none of which is ESPN, whom the SEC completely aligned itself with for its new TV deal, starting in 2024-25.
When the SEC and ESPN announced that new contract in December 2020, the $3 billion figure across those 10 years (through 2033-34) became the public barometer for comparison to the Big Ten, which will obviously bring in more than that: an average of $300 million per year (SEC) versus an average of $1.14 billion per year (Big Ten), per back-of-napkin math.
But those headliner deals neglect to account for what’s already in place, namely the conferences’ own TV networks. The original ESPN-backed SEC Network launched in 2014 with a deal that runs through 2033-34. The $300 million-per-year SEC property that ESPN recently landed was primarily for the package previously known as the “CBS Game of the Week” slate, which CBS had been paying only $55 million a year for.
Federal tax returns showed the SEC distributed $588 million to member schools off its TV deals in the 2021 fiscal year. Again, simple back-of-the-napkin math would place the non-CBS figure at $533 million, which is money that will continue to be pouring into SEC schools’ pockets in addition to the incoming ESPN game of the week deal ($300 million).
Add those two figures up, and you have $833 million per year. Divide that by 14 member schools, and you have an average of $59.5 million per year in media money going to each institution over the life of the deal. (With Oklahoma and Texas scheduled to start SEC play in 2025-26, the second year of the deal, a prorated 16-team model would net a similar dollar figure per school.)
The Big Ten’s figures are a little more complicated. Unlike the SEC, the Big Ten does not specify TV revenue on its tax records. It also played a shorter football season than the SEC in 2020, which means it had less inventory, and therefore its payouts on its most recent tax returns are not predictive. (The Big Ten reported $583 million in “sports revenue” on its 2021 forms, down from $678 million a year earlier.)
Industry sources have said NBC and CBS will spend roughly $350 million per year apiece for their Big Ten packages. That would place the Fox/Big Ten Network piece of the deal in the $440 million neighborhood.
Fox now owns 61 percent of equity in the Big Ten Network, but it is unclear how that would affect TV payouts to schools.
“Here’s the thing with the Big Ten Network: The conference plays on two levels,” said Bob Thompson, former Fox Sports Networks president. “First, there’s the rights deal between the Big Ten Network and the conference, that’s one piece of the puzzle. Then there’s the joint venture agreement behind the Big Ten Network. The Big Ten Network would distribute excess cash to its joint venture partners on an annual basis. One would assume the conference then distributes their joint venture disbursement in some manner.
“The Big Ten Conference is a not-for-profit entity. However, the portion of the Big Ten Network they own is outside of that not-for-profit entity. In order for them to enter into a for-profit joint venture it needed to be structured in this manner. So the excess cash would come out of the joint venture and then go into the conference’s for-profit entity. From there, I’m not quite sure whether it is kept at the conference level or distributed to schools in some manner. I believe that in 2020, as a result of the pandemic, the conference sold a portion of their equity in the joint venture and distributed the proceeds to the members. One could assume they do the same with any yearly JV distributions as well.”
Keep in mind, too, that the Big Ten’s deal will increase in the later years, as the first year of the new deal (2023-24) overlaps with the SEC’s last year on CBS and as two new teams come aboard in 2024-25. The deal, which runs through 2029-30, is difficult to project on a year-to-year basis. That said, $1.14 billion divided 14 ways would equate to an average of $81.4 million per school per year. (And, much like the SEC, with UCLA and USC scheduled to start Big Ten play in 2024-25, a prorated 16-team model would net a similar number.)
That $81.4 million figure still doesn’t account for Fox’s cut, however, something multiple industry sources cautioned against overlooking. It’s not as simple as taking 61 percent off that $440 million Fox/BTN figure, either ($268 million). Doing that would bring the total TV revenue to $872 million, which, when divided 14 ways, equals $62.2 million.
The actual number is likely somewhere in between. Thompson thinks the average annual Big Ten TV payouts will be in the $75 million-per-school range at the deal’s peak, which would still give the Big Ten some healthy separation from the SEC.
Again, the SEC has reported TV revenue in its past tax returns. The Big Ten hasn’t, so there will continue to be a public unknown to its financials.
Not that there is any doubt that the rich are continuing to get richer.
LikeLike
Marc and others have brought up the good point that the Big Ten and SEC have expanded slowly to integrate members and ensure stability/fit work in the longer term.
But a big part of that has been that few “major targets” have been available each time when the Big Ten and SEC were adding schools.
The Big Ten for example was actively looking at 14 and 16 school scenarios as far back as 2010 when the conference first considered expanding past 11. Delany first approached Maryland back then; we know schools like Texas and ND had open invites as well. The Big Ten tried to grab UVA, UNC, Ga Tech as well when Maryland joined.
The SEC would have added Texas/OU with A&M if the leadership of that era had the same pro-SEC leadership of the current era.
The point being: if there are schools available that add value to the conference, you add them fast because you don’t know what the leadership will look like in 10 years or whether their priorities will change.
That’s why the Big Ten added USC and UCLA. Add those 2 now and figure out the rest later. Yes there will likely be more western schools but without ACC schools or ND the finances may not work.
If ND said yes to the Big Ten today, we know they’d likely be joined by Stanford and possibly Washington and Oregon.
I think the ACC scramble coming in the 2020s will be a “big bang” style expansion event because it’s likely to be the most competitive sequence of expansion.
Both Big Ten and SEC will look at 2-4 school addition scenarios once the ACC grant of rights ends.
The issue is competition and overlapping major targets. When you’re in a competitive scenario, you do have to potentially make a bigger offer.
The Big Ten is likely to target FSU, Miami, and UNC.
SEC is likely to target FSU, UNC, and Clemson.
UNC is likely to force whichever conference takes them to move to 20. They aren’t going alone with FSU or Miami. That’s the reality given that school is likely near the top of the list for both conferences. One conference will offer them either 1 or 2 out of UVA, Duke, and NC State as partners.
LikeLike
UNC may want to force something, but considering that only ND and FSU (probably Clemson, possibly Miami) are additive, they really don’t have much leverage. When you’re a “nice to have” that is dilutive or break-even at best and are attractive for only nonfinancial reasons (prestige, basketball, location), you don’t get to demand much. Hence why UNC (and UVa and Duke) may not actually leave the ACC for the B10/SEC. Only FSU is sure to be picked up by the P2 (and ND if they ever forgo “independence”).
LikeLike
Interesting comment from Matt Brown. I can take this a few ways.
LikeLike
If the Big 12 extends their deal with ESPN/FOX, this will tell us what the exit fees are for any school leaving. I believe its two years of future distributions (how is that defined for UT/OU?) or any school thinking about moving to the ACC/PAC.
LikeLike
Penn St at Purdue Thursday night – fearless prediction from a Boilermaker.
– For the first time in over a decade, the consensus of preseason prognosticators has upgraded their evaluation of Purdue’s offensive line from “Pitiful” to “Mediocre”.
– Purdue’s walk-on QB is the best kept secret in college football. He’ll be in the first two rounds of the NFL draft this spring.
– This night game in WL is hauntingly similar to Purdue’s stunning 49-20 win over #2 Ohio State in 2018.
My prediction: Purdue 42, Penn State 21.
LikeLike
Aidan O’Connell is the real deal.
Shows how difficult it is project a HS QB as everybody whiffed on recruiting O’Connell (and Garoppolo, who went to a FCS program) while Hunter Johnson was a highly-pursued 5-star.
Which makes sense as the most important part of a QB is the mental aspect (being able to read a D and see plays develop) rather than the physical aspect.
LikeLike
Looks like there may be resolution on the new CFP format as soon as this Friday and it could be effective as soon as the 2024 season.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/31/college-football-playoff-expansion-meeting-future
In a scheduled virtual meeting Friday, the CFP’s highest-ranking governing body, the Board of Managers, is expected to chart the next course in Playoff expansion by potentially holding a vote that, if unanimous, could open the path for expansion as early as 2024, sources tell Sports Illustrated.
* * *
A vote is possible on an expansion model that could shape the next evolution of college football’s postseason, though details of the new format are likely to be left to commissioners to decide. Despite growing attraction to a 16-team field, the 12-team model remains the favorite as commissioners spent a year examining and vetting that proposal. They are believed to be close to agreeing to several unresolved concepts.
Just as important as the format is the vote. The CFP is in the final four years of a contract with ESPN that expires after the 2025 Playoff. In order to expand before the contract’s expiration, a unanimous vote is necessary. The management committee—the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick—could not come to a unanimous decision after an exhaustive 10-month stretch of negotiations that included public barbs, hurt feelings and, in the end, an 8–3 measure in February. The Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 voted against the proposal but have recently shown a renewed interest in supporting the expansion model.
* * *
One of the more pressing issues involves ESPN. The network owns the rights of the 2024 and ’25 Playoff, a bugaboo for many commissioners who want to see multiple networks holding ownership over pieces of the Playoff. While ESPN has shown a willingness to compromise, the nature of those talks are unclear.
* * *
LikeLike
Its a pretty big slam of the 3 new commissioners by the presidents. They have to take it over because the commissioners couldn’t get it done.
LikeLike
That assumes those commissioners weren’t told to vote against it last time. Maybe now circumstances have changed enough that the presidents feel differently, and want to decide in favor of it.
Maybe they think there is some bad blood between commissioners and that it would go smoother at their level.
Maybe they think all sides would be more willing to compromise if several of the voting members didn’t create the plan personally.
LikeLike
I’m struggling to understand the logic here.
They’re literally punting it back to the commissioners and telling them to come up with a playoff expansion again… not just blindly accepting the Sankey-Bowlsby-Swarbrick compromise that would’ve expanded the playoff to 12 teams *and* handed control of all TV rights to ESPN for a 12 year extension.
Maybe let’s wait and see where this goes before presupposing the result.
At most this might be a 2 year trial where 2024-2025 are expanded before the contract ends.
I’ll admit I’m completely wrong on this if they decide to go with the original plan from last year that was shelved and ESPN controls the rights to a 12 team playoff through 2036.
LikeLike
The indication is that they ARE likely going with the original plan. And the presidents will vote on it. THEN, they are sending it to the commissioners to fill in the fine print (Rose Bowl, money distribution, etc.).
LikeLike
Which is odd, since the lack of a plan for the money distribution was one of the reasons for a “No” vote last time.
If the commissioners can’t agree on the details, what does the presidential vote really mean?
LikeLike
It means we want the money from an expanded playoff ASAP (versus leaving on the table for another 2 years), and if you cannot figure it out with your multi-million salaries we will have to find someone who can. Should get a deal unless the B10 vetoes it. The previous other NO votes PAC and ACC know there will not be a better deal for them at expiration (same for G5, B12).
LikeLike
If the commissioners can’t agree on the details, what does the presidential vote really mean?
This could be premature, because who knows if the presidents actually will cast such a vote? But with that said…the plan last time collapsed for a bunch of reasons. If the presidents say yes, then many of those reasons are swept away, and are no longer points of discussion. If you give the same committee a smaller list of problems to solve, along with a mandate to get it done, it is a lot more likely that they will do so.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty big slam of the 3 new commissioners by the presidents. They have to take it over because the commissioners couldn’t get it done.
I agree with Brian — the commissioners who voted last time were not just giving personal opinions. They were in contact with the presidents and other key stakeholders, who either told them how to vote or at least concurred in how they voted.
They’re literally punting it back to the commissioners and telling them to come up with a playoff expansion again.
The committee last time was struggling with whether to expand at all; the format if it did expand; and all the logistical/financial issues that were contingent upon a format. If you trust the reporting, the presidents are taking huge decisions off the table by endorsing the outlines of the subcommittee plan. This will free up the commissioners to figure out the details.
…the Sankey-Bowlsby-Swarbrick compromise that would’ve expanded the playoff to 12 teams *and* handed control of all TV rights to ESPN for a 12 year extension.
I never saw reporting that Sankey, Bowlsby, and Swarbrick proposed handing all of the TV rights to ESPN for 12 years. They were assigned to recommend a scheduling format, and they completed their task. They were not assigned to decide the TV rights.
ESPN’s contract includes some type of exclusivity should the playoff expand during the 12-year term, which I think is common in such agreements. Since the agreement is not public, there is nothing but rumors as to what it says. The commissioners certainly knew—or should have known— it would have to be dealt with. Apparently they have found a way around it, or we would not be having this conversation.
At most this might be a 2 year trial where 2024-2025 are expanded before the contract ends.
They know it is not a 2-year trial. Once you hold a 12-team playoff for two years, it becomes exceedingly difficult ever to go back. I think this was why the committee could not agree last time. Their task was billed as a decision whether to tear up the playoff contracts for the last two years. But in practical terms, any format they endorsed was almost certainly going to become a new baseline for many years to come.
LikeLike
I mean the TV side of the deal would be a 2 year temporary deal with ESPN.
As far as bracket creep goes, sure once you expand, it’s almost impossible to shrink.
LikeLike
Looks like there’s reporting around Washington talking to the Big Ten similar to what was reported about Oregon:
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I’m still not sure this really means any additions will be made in the immediate future, but we’ll see. He also notes the Big Ten is targeting 4 Pac-12 schools plus Notre Dame. Do we really expect 5 schools? To me this would suggest one of the Pac-12 schools is a back-up to Notre Dame, as I can’t see any ACC teams moving at this time to accompany Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I should clarify: either three Pac-12 teams + Notre Dame or 4 Pac-12 teams. I don’t see an odd number happening.
LikeLike
I agree. But it is a big step to go to 20 w/o ND. That means either you are writing off ND or you are committing to going beyond 20, which is also a big step.
Are they sold on going over 20?
LikeLike
I agree that’s a concern. There’s a certain size where it turns from a conference into effectively a CFA-style scheduling arrangement.
To the extent that the Big Ten adds more Pac-12 schools, it’s inherently going to be less about the money (albeit the Big Ten schools aren’t taking a pay reduction) and more that the league believes it’s in its long-term interests to build out a full West Coast wing.
LikeLike
The B10 can go to 22 without making hard scheduling decisions.
And the big dogs in the B10 may actually prefer to capture the economic surplus of ND as an associate member than as a full member.
But there are arguments both for and against building out a full West Coast wing.
Pros: Academics/rubbing shoulders with Stanford and Cal. Dominate Silicon Valley and top of the B10 would challenge the Ivies academically.
Lots of B10 alums in the Bay Area. Seattle too.
Robust After Dark slot
Cons: Even with an attractive After Dark slot, the money doesn’t really work. Why expand just to expand for no economic benefit?
Big dogs less likely to win the B10
Travel worsens a lot for the original 14 while not even improving all that much for the LA schools
The West Coast schools just aren’t that attractive because the West Coast in general just doesn’t care about college football as much as the Midwest and South.
Unlike in the case of PSU back when the ACC was expanding, where would the LA schools go? They chose to leave the Pac.
LikeLike
The B10 can go to 22 without making hard scheduling decisions.
This is true, but the question is how far beyond 22 they might be going if the ACC is up for grabs a decade from now.
LikeLike
I doubt a lot.
As I mentioned before, really only ND and FSU (probably Clemson and possibly Miami) are additive to the P2 now (and are currently outside the P2).
While I personally wouldn’t mind forming the Big (28) Ivy League & Athletic Conference, it seems pretty unlikely that the B10 would add even all 4 of those schools named above, let alone 4 more charity cases for non-financial (demographics/recruiting/prestige/basketball) reasons.
LikeLike
The question in my mind is how the Big Ten is thinking about UNC+Duke+UVA vs. Stanford+Cal+Oregon, assuming all were eventually available. (We will assume that FSU, Miami, and Washington are “no-brainers.”)
I understand that UNC, Duke, and UVA, are not revenue-additive. But Stanford and Cal are not either. Oregon’s value depends on them continuing as a national contender, which is far from assured. They are certainly not at the academic level of the other schools on the list.
LikeLike
I think we’d need the B10 to add ND and/or FSU (or at least capture ND’s surplus value as an associate member) to add any of the academically elite schools in the Bay Area/Tidewater. And they may not do so even then.
Both are good for recruiting. The Tidewater schools are closer to the original 14. Bay Area has a ton more B10 alums. Tidewater schools _might_ be desired by the SEC. So who knows.
But I just don’t see the B10 going past 22.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten can add 1-3 more with just FSU or Miami; for certain another 2 if both come to the Big Ten as unlikely as that may be. Miami was one of the biggest draws in the sport in the 90s-00s. Pretty much would’ve appeared on any top 5-10 tv ratings list every year. That’s $ for the Tier 1-2 deals and as far as T3 goes, you’d get around 45% of Florida which is as big as Ohio or Michigan (and it’s still a growing region).
But I’m with Marc that it just gets very hard to determine what the best path forward here is when you’re weighing the next batch of schools for very few spots.
In terms of what schools I’d bet on to be good at football outside of the Big Ten in 15 years, only FSU and Miami are easy bets.
Clemson at least is in the right region of the country though it’s impossible to tell how much of their current run is Dabo and how much is a permanent trajectory change. It’s different from say LSU winning national championships under 3 different coaches, or even Georgia where they dominate one of the most talent-rich states in the country and are next to Florida. Clemson has an in-state equal in terms of fanbase/popularity in South Carolina which still has the SEC branding.
Oregon has the Nike connection but distance from recruiting grounds makes it harder to bet on; maybe in a weakened Pac-12 they can make a 12 team CFP every year and change their trajectory but that’s hard to be on now.
And that brings you back to the question of UNC/UVa/Duke versus Cal/Stanford.
No easy answers but at least UNC/UVA/Duke are close to the Big Ten’s footprint and probably help recruiting more.
LikeLike
Clemson had early success under Heisman 120 years ago and won a national championship in 1981. However, it was 20 years between Clemson’s last ACC championship and the first one under Dabo. So, there are questions about what happens after Dabo, and even if Dabo can maintain the success over the next 10 years.
LikeLike
Yeah, Clemson is essentially UNL/UO but located in a very rich recruiting region.
But that is a very important BUT!
LikeLike
No real question about Clemson. They are #21 all time in win % (17 among P5). That puts them just behind Auburn and just ahead of Washington. I don’t think anybody on this board would need to look up who the other 15 P5s ahead of them are.
LikeLike
The endpoint should be 24 schools: 6 each on both the east and west coasts, and 12 in the middle. Now you have a real, national, NFL-style conference.
Don’t obsess about “dilution” or scheduling. Fan numbers for a true national conference will sky rocket. The NFL is nowhere near fan saturation, and a 24 team, national B1G won’t be either.
LikeLike
I truly believe they do not give a damn about scheduling if the numbers work. If you can make enough money, scheduling is just something you figure out.
It is not yet certain that the NFL model works anywhere else except the NFL. The next Big Ten TV deal will be an early opportunity to test if it does. Note that the NFL has not expanded in 20 years. They obviously will expand again, but they seem to be in no hurry.
LikeLike
Bob: “The endpoint should be 24 schools: 6 each on both the east and west coasts, and 12 in the middle. Now you have a real, national, NFL-style conference.”
I don’t think anything is happening with the P2. Ten years from now, both will be at 16 members, ND will be pseudo-independent and the ACC will be stuck in their GOR.
We may see some shuffling among the PAC, WAC, MWC and Big XII but nothing earth-shaking. I expect the PAC TV revenue to go from bad to worse and the attempts of the various PAC members to escape to the Valhalla of the Big Ten will become increasingly in vain and more desperate.
LikeLike
Conferences aren’t going to expand to some nice even number (either 4 16-school conferences or a 24-school B10) just because the number sounds nice. And even if some additions (ND, FSU) may pay for others, that doesn’t mean the B10 would add dilutive schools. After all, the LA schools could have paid for 2 more West Coast schools but the B10 has declined to add them (so far).
LikeLike
Its not always easy to figure out. The SEC suddenly found the venues that could handle Olympic sports conference championships were very limited when they went from 12 teams to 14.
LikeLike
bullet – what?
LikeLike
Things like swimming facilities, there were only about 3 that could handle the conference meet. Simply not able to accommodate that many athletes.
LikeLike
bullett – Three swimming facilities that can accommodate a conference meet doesn’t sound like a problem to me. This is the first time I’ve ever heard anything about facility issues due to SEC expansion.
Many SEC championship/tournament events are hosted in permanent or rotating locations: football/Atlanta; baseball/Hoover AL; MBB/Nashville (mainly); WBB/Greenville (mainly); M Golf/St. Seiman’s Island GA; W Golf/Birmingham; Gymnastics rotates to neutral site cites; softball, M&W tennis M&W ITF, OTF & XC rotate to all schools. Equestrian – don’t know don’t care.
Don’t make S&D sound like a conference-wide all sports issue by writing “things” as in plural.
LikeLike
They talked about other sports too. But the article was 10 years ago. And some ADs were unhappy that they couldn’t host the event like they used to.
LikeLike
It may be a shame that U Washington is really isolated, since Oregon really does not seem to add that much to the B1G.
I could see adding Stanford (but not Cal) just because it is Stanford, but if the PAC is still viable, would Stanford create massive travel problems for its Olympic Sports by moving to the B1G? Obviously if the PAC explodes then Stanford has other issues for those sports. Would Stanford simply be an independent? They have the money if they wish to do it.
I think that a UVA, UNC, Duke package that will not pay for itself might still be attractive for other reasons.
There do appear to be a few financially dillutive schools that have other sufficient other virtues to be serious candidates for future expansion.
LikeLike
The NFL model sounds nice but the key difference is the NFL has franchises that can move around.
You can’t move a university. The Big Ten wants to be a national conference but it has to make decisions that make sense permanently in every expansion decision.
So the NFL can move 2 franchises to LA and another to Vegas to dramatically increase the media value those franchises drive compared to their prior markets while staying at 32 teams.
Obviously not many franchises will move but they always can move franchises as demographics shift. Buffalo or Jacksonville can move someday as needed.
Big Ten can’t do that and is not likely to be kicking anyone out… so these are viewed as permanent decisions.
Let’s say the clear top 3 remaining from the Pac-12 are Washington, Oregon, and Stanford in terms of Big Ten targets.
Who should be #4 (assuming Big Ten would expand without ND or ACC schools to 20)?
I’m skeptical on Cal, especially if Stanford is already coming along:
What does Cal bring to the table other than elite academics? Competitively in football/basketball they’re a non-factor outside a handful of years in the last 50.
I’d venture Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah would all be better choices.
They add extra states and grab one of the 4 Corner schools as a Big Ten school in that region of the country.
What’s the point of doubling down on what might be the 2nd worst college football market in the country outside of NYC?
I feel like this decision is best delayed until the mid 2030s when there might be schools in the ACC to pair with 1-3 of the Pac-12 schools.
LikeLike
z33k: “Let’s say the clear top 3 remaining from the Pac-12 are Washington, Oregon, and Stanford in terms of Big Ten targets.”
That isn’t clear at all. If we consider location, fan base, location, TV markets and location, then Arizona State, Utah and Colorado win hands down. The conference would be contiguous and every school in the Big Ten, including USC & UCLA, would have easier team travel compared to Washington, Oregon and Stanford.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten agrees with you, I congratulate them on keeping that fact remarkably quiet.
LikeLike
Marc: “If the Big Ten agrees with you, I congratulate them on keeping that fact remarkably quiet.”
Quiet? Marc, where is the Big Ten’s public announcement about being focused upon Washington, Oregon and Stanford?
LikeLike
The B10 certainly hasn’t shown, by either words or actions, that it cares about contiguousness.
Also, the point of expansion is to add schools that are additive or at least not dilutive, and all 3 of CU, UU, and ASU currently are extremely dilutive (because few people watch their football games on TV).
It’s rossible that changes in the future (like the 2040’s/50’s), but I’m sure the B10 would address that then. actions, that it cares p
LikeLike
Richard: “the point of expansion is to add schools that are additive or at least not dilutive, and all 3 of CU, UU, and ASU currently are extremely dilutive (because few people watch their football games on TV).”
Well, let’s look at that. Ranked viewing of college football teams in 2021:
10. Oregon
37. Utah
38. Washington
46. Stanford
47. Arizona State
64. Colorado
The Oregon ranking is skewed by games vs Ohio State and Oklahoma. We all know that the Oregon brand will crash and burn when Phil Knight’s donations dry up. The Stanford ranking is skewed by its annual game vs Notre Dame. And the best attended game at Colorado since joining the Pac-12? Nebraska.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy. . . multiple times.
It’s not officially the BiG, but it’s not nothing either.
LikeLike
Redwood: “Where is the Big Ten’s public announcement about being focused upon Washington, Oregon and Stanford?”
Do you understand that I’m not asking for the prognostication of some dickhead sports writer? I am asking for an announcement from the Big Ten office that confirms this WA/OR/Stanford preference.
LikeLike
I think top-end reporters have real sources, albeit unnamed once. I do not fully trust anonymous sources; still, there is usually some basis for what they say. The reporting — such as it is — almost never mentions the schools you suggested. It does frequently mention the schools you consider to be lesser choices.
You and I agree that the Big Ten is probably not expanding again in this cycle. But if they did, it would be pretty shocking if the next three schools added were Utah, Colorado, and Arizona State. All of the reporting to date suggests those schools (and Arizona) would land in the Big XII if the Pac-12 implodes.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think top-end reporters have real sources, albeit unnamed once. I do not fully trust anonymous sources; still, there is usually some basis for what they say. The reporting — such as it is — almost never mentions the schools you suggested. It does frequently mention the schools you consider to be lesser choices.”
Thanks, that is what I have said repeatedly. There is nothing, zero, from the Big Ten office that suggests that the conference has a preference for Washington, Oregon and Stanford.
LikeLike
There is nothing, zero, from the Big Ten office that suggests that the conference has a preference for Washington, Oregon and Stanford.
However, there is nothing, zero, suggesting your schools either, so we move on to the next level of evidence, such as it is.
LikeLike
Marc: “However, there is nothing, zero, suggesting your schools either, so we move on to the next level of evidence, such as it is.”
Marc, I was responding to a comment on this forum that declared the Big Ten “clearly” had a preference for Washington, Oregon and Stanford. That comment was “clearly” bull droppings.
LikeLike
Colin, you didn’t actually show that CU, ASU, and UU weren’t very dilutive.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, you didn’t actually show that CU, ASU, and UU weren’t very dilutive.”
Right, and I never said they wouldn’t be dilutive. That hobgoblin is in your head, not mine. I said the B1G office never stated a preference for WA/OR/Stanford. Period.
LikeLike
“I said the B1G office never stated a preference for WA/OR/Stanford. Period.”
You said quite a bit more than that. We would all agree that the Big Ten office has never stated a preference for those (or any) schools. But you added: “If we consider location, fan base, location, TV markets and location, then Arizona State, Utah and Colorado win hands down.”
LikeLike
Right. Location . . .location . . . location. I did not coin that phrase.
LikeLike
Brett’s not the only one. All all say the information came from Big 10 officials.
Its not like who they are looking at has ever been any secret. Only the seriousness. And all the valuations say UW and Oregon are the top two. Stanford and Cal has the biggest market.
LikeLike
bullet: ” And all the valuations say UW and Oregon are the top two. Stanford and Cal has the biggest market.”
That Bay Area “market” has already been captured by USC and UCLA. And both Stanford and Cal have miniscule fan bases. Stanford and Cal add zero TV market.
LikeLike
Are you so dense as to not know that there will NEVER be a public announcement from the conference office about being focused upon any particular school until the school has formally accepted an invitation?
LikeLike
Redwood: “Are you so dense as to not know that there will NEVER be a public announcement from the conference office about being focused upon any particular school until the school has formally accepted an invitation?”
Jesus H. Christ, are you in some kind of Orwellian doublethink? I’m the guy who told you that there was no announcement from the conference office about West Coast expansion schools.
LikeLike
I think they let the media announce their meetings with UO and UW. I don’t recall any such meetings with ASU, UU or CU. Just because they’re your obsession doesn’t mean anyone else (outside of NE) agrees. You’ve convinced nobody of their value.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Well, let’s look at that. Ranked viewing of college football teams in 2021:”
Right. Because single season ratings are clearly the best metric for long term popularity.
“10. Oregon
37. Utah
38. Washington
46. Stanford
47. Arizona State
64. Colorado
The Oregon ranking is skewed by games vs Ohio State and Oklahoma. We all know that the Oregon brand will crash and burn when Phil Knight’s donations dry up. The Stanford ranking is skewed by its annual game vs Notre Dame. And the best attended game at Colorado since joining the Pac-12? Nebraska.”
Then stop cherry-picking one year of ratings.
And how does an annual game skew anything? As long as they keep playing every year, it’s just part of their schedule. Everyone’s most popular game skews the ratings average.
View at Medium.com
Averages for 2015-19:
25. Stanford (1.43M)
26. Oregon (1.34M)
28. Washington (1.32M)
41. Utah (856K)
47. California (730K)
50. Arizona State (695K)
58. Colorado (610K)
62. Arizona (561K)
LikeLike
Colin,
Do you understand that I’m not asking for the prognostication of some dickhead sports writer?
Nobody’s asking for the blathering of a “dickhead” internet troll, but that hasn’t stopped you.
Unless you know McMurphy personally, you have no justification for calling him names just because he reports things you don’t want to be true.
LikeLike
Colin,
Marc, I was responding to a comment on this forum that declared the Big Ten “clearly” had a preference for Washington, Oregon and Stanford.
No, you actually weren’t. You’re second grade reading level has caught you out again.
z33k said:
“Let’s say the clear top 3 remaining from the Pac-12 are Washington, Oregon, and Stanford in terms of Big Ten targets.”
That is called posing a hypothetical. He didn’t declare that they were the clear top 3, he asked us to suppose it for the next part of his comment. There he offered that your 3 schools might be better options than Cal.
That comment was “clearly” bull droppings.
No, because you didn’t write it.
LikeLike
By golly, Brian, you are correct. Z33k didn’t say the clear top 3 remaining Big Ten targets from the Pac-12 are Washington, Oregon, and Stanford.
He said “Let’s say the clear top 3 remaining from the Pac-12 are Washington, Oregon, and Stanford in terms of Big Ten targets.”
LikeLike
Colin,
“That Bay Area “market” has already been captured by USC and UCLA.”
And as always, you have not one iota of evidence to back that up. Nobody else that has ever lived in NoCal seems to agree. No media experts agree. No reporters agree.
LikeLike
I enjoy the banter Colin… but you said it yourself: “location, fan base, location, TV markets and location”
If you add brand to that, you end up with Washington, Oregon, and Stanford as the top 3 when you weigh them appropriately.
I can see a dogfight for that 4th spot I suppose, but I’m not sure what you’re seeing that places schools above those 3 in value.
1) Washington has everything: elite academics, top 20-25 football brand, strong fan support in its market which is a large market, Seattle + rest of Washington state.
Washington would already be in the Big Ten if it was available in a state near the Big Ten footprint; it’s like a Wisconsin-level program that’s on the West Coast. You always try to add one of those.
2) Stanford has everything except local support/fan support: super elite academics, strong football brand in terms of Pac-12/Rose Bowl success with the ability to win recruiting battles for blue chip recruits that want their degree, huge market, the ND relationship.
3) Oregon has everything except the academics and its market is more mid-sized, stronger football brand than Washington (would be in that mix for 5th in the Big Ten with Nebraska/Wisconsin/Michigan State, perhaps above those 3 right now due to 2 championship game appearances).
None of the other choices comes close to those 3. Cal is redundant and very similar to Stanford; lacks strong support (maybe a bit better than Stanford due to larger enrollment and UC flagship status, but that’s not saying much).
Arizona State is probably a better #4 to me: sort of like a weaker Washington in terms of market/support/academics.
LikeLike
One thing I wonder is, let’s say the Big Ten does have a west coast expansion and adds ND to get to 20 (leaving out Cal for the sake of the argument). Will the SEC ever feel pressure to expand out of the Southeast, particularly if the Big Ten’s media strategy pays off? People have mentioned UNC, FSU, and Clemson, but is there any worry about being stuck in that region?
Maybe not, but we have talked on this blog quite a bit about demographics and out of state student recruitment, so I do wonder if SEC presidents would be thinking about more distant additions to the conference. Demographics may not always favor the southeast as climate and industry shift over time.
LikeLike
It is certainly possible that a decade or two from now, either the Big Ten will regret expanding coast-to-cost, or the SEC will regret not doing that. However, in your hypothetical I am not sure what schools outside the Southeast the SEC could realistically go after without diluting their brand, other than trying to pry them loose from the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Ross: “Will the SEC ever feel pressure to expand out of the Southeast, particularly if the Big Ten’s media strategy pays off? People have mentioned UNC, FSU, and Clemson, but is there any worry about being stuck in that region?”
With A&M/UT they now control 2/3rd of the biggest Tier 1 states for recruiting (Tier 1 = CA, FL, TX). For the next tier down (OH, PA, VA, MD, NC, GA, AL, maybe WA, others I’m missing I’m sure) they will likely control more than half once adding ACC schools. Long term demographics for their states is expected to keep growing, so they’re not facing the same existential crisis the B10 was with its original Midwest region members.
From a television markets standpoint they may fall behind. But they’re already arguably behind and have maintained relative financial parity with the B10 by producing a superior product on the field for the last ~20 years.
Plus I think there’s a reason the SEC confines itself to former Confederate states. There’s a reason that conference seems to have “SEC fans” as much as fans of particular teams. Adding Missouri and Texas doesn’t change that, nor would adding UNC, UVa, VT, etc. For better or worse it’s who they are, and frankly it’s their marketing brand as much as anything.
LikeLike
MFDLX – you certainly left out the state that punches way above its weight class (population) and has formed the nucleus of three national championship teams this century. Home to 22 Rivals 4*+ players ( including the No. 1 player in the country and 17 ranked in the top 250), despite having a population of only 4.6m.
I’m talking about my state of Louisiana!
FYI – here’s the number of 2023 Rivals 5 & 4 star players by state along with the state’s population.
California 39.4m – 25
Texas 29.4 – 66
Florida 21.7m – 75
Pennsylvania 12.8m – 9
Ohio 11.7m – 12
Georgia 10.7m – 36
North Carolina 10.6m – 10
Virginia 8.6m – 5
Washington 7.7m – 4
Maryland 6.1m – 8
Alabama 4.9m – 23
LikeLike
So we have heard contradictory reports on whether the B10 would add 4 West Coast schools without adding ND. I can that happening due to different reporters having different sources at different schools or the B10.
We know that the WC4 without ND would at best be breakeven, not additive (probably would have to take a haircut until ND and/or FSU are added).
Given that financial reality, there are probably schools who favor adding the WC4 because they have a ton of alums in the Bay Area and Seattle (NU, UIUC, PU) or eye CA for recruiting (UNL) and Warren and the B10 office likely also want to build an NFL-style empire. The LA schools probably are for it too. But there would also be schools who don’t want to expand and decrease their likelihood of winning the conference or CCG berths (OSU, PSU, MSU) or have a lot of rivalries they’d prefer to play twice in 4 years rather than once in 3 even if unprotected (Iowa, Minny?). UMich and Wisconsin have reasons both for and against adding the WC4. RU, UMD, and IU may lean against expansion as well as that would allow them to play UMich/OSU more often.
LikeLike
I think the key question is, “What problem is the B1G solving by expanding past 16?”
And I can’t find a problem more expansion solves:
Money? Nope, highest revenue conference.
Power/Access? Nope, B1G won’t be left out of any important NCAA-esque level decisions and at worst might only get 3 slots in a 12 team playoff instead of 4 each year.
Prestige? Nope.
Exposure? Might be a slight worry about college bball being not on ESPN, but expansion doesn’t solve that.
Demographics? Expansion does directly address this, though I don’t know if the B1G considers their current footprint to be a problem that needs solving.
Even if these are problems, are the trade offs worth it? Fewer conference championships to go around, more travel for everyone except the LA schools (if WC expansion), not enough games to play everyone regularly.
Idk, I just don’t see it anytime soon. If the problem is MORE MONEY ALWAYS then you need a pair of schools worth a combined $300M a year to cover themselves ($100M/yr) and increase the existing 16 schools payout by $6M/yr. What two schools can increase total media rights by approximately 25% while composing 12.5% of an 18-team B1G membership? And is a 6% increase in media rights revenue worth the additional problems expansion creates?
LikeLike
I can’t find a problem more expansion solves…
I believe the Big Ten is probably not expanding again in this cycle. Still, I think you have phrased the issue the wrong way. It’s not a question of what problem the league has. After all, the Big Ten was not suffering before USC knocked on the door. But USC did knock, they saw an opportunity, and they took it.
Likewise, the NFL is widely expected to expand in the next few years. But it is not because they have a problem only expansion can solve. It’s because they see more opportunity.
So the question is not about problems, but opportunity. You might still answer it in the negative, but that is the more appropriate way of thinking about it.
LikeLike
They aren’t expanding to solve problems. They are expanding for opportunities.
I didn’t think they would expand without Notre Dame because nobody raises the short term TV deal. But all the reporting indicates they will. There are lots of non-financial and indirect financial reasons–access to alumni, access to sponsors in Seattle and the Bay Area, recruits, access to the #6 and #14 DMAs, dominating the west coast, getting content for 10:30 pm games, getting more content to sell for streaming.
LikeLike
You expand because this is a business and that’s what businesses do when they see untapped markets.
Also because there is competition and generally in markets like this the top competitors tend to squeeze everyone else out by taking the prized assets.
Also: in my mind you expand for the sake of being national in every region of the country, it’s a worthwhile goal to have Big Ten schools in every area of the country.
LikeLike
As a corollary to what Marc said, if schools with terrific brands that “fit” the conference academically/athetically want to join and bring with them major growth markets where your alums/families like to settle, you have to consider them.
FSU, Miami, Washington, Stanford, Oregon, UNC, UVa, Va Tech, ASU, Duke, etc. are worth considering for membership in the Big Ten (of course some of those might prefer the SEC).
There can be synergies to expansion; it’s the same reason why ND plays USC and Stanford: because they want to visit the West Coast. The same reason why ND plays games in NYC: because they want to visit NYC.
A lot of ND’s needs are similar to those of Ohio State/Michigan (a point I’ve made many times here). Building a national conference is good for Ohio State/Michigan. They want to play in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA.
They may also want to play in SF, Seattle, Miami, VA, NC, Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, etc.
LikeLike
z33k,
“A lot of ND’s needs are similar to those of Ohio State/Michigan (a point I’ve made many times here). Building a national conference is good for Ohio State/Michigan. They want to play in NYC, DC, Chicago, LA.”
No, they want to play in Columbus, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Happy Valley, Madison, Bloomington, Urbana-Champaign, West Lafayette, Minneapolis, Evanston, and Iowa City. The rest are fundraising trips or recruiting trips.
LikeLike
Few businesses need their various locations to fly to each other for meetings, or have locations with long-standing rivalries that need to be maintained.
Businesses expand when they can make more profit. Nobody has sold how this expansion would do that, now or later. Killing the p12 doesn’t help the B10. The SEC is the business competition, and the B10 will never steal their market share.
LikeLike
Yep. If the B1G is a business it’s a partnership not a corporation. If they can increase profit per share they do so, but expansion requires increasing the number of shares. And expanding dilutes the OTA exposure for the B1G teams, dilutes the number of championships, and dilutes conference cohesion due to fewer games against non rivals.
Besides, if Denver, Seattle, Phoenix, Portland, and SF were so valuable to play in the LA schools wouldn’t have left. Create some bowl games there if necessary. Create pre season bowl games. Remove the “need 6 wins to be bowl eligible rule.”
If they want to play in those cities they can schedule OOC games there. You don’t need to expand the conference to play in a city once every 6-8 years. That makes 0 sense.
And they already have access to those DMAs via 3 OTA games each Saturday. Sure, they probably get a lower BTN rate per cable subscriber in those places without the teams but who wants to make 100 yr decisions based on cable subscribers right now?
There’s no market share left to steal once you can create 3 compelling OTA games for every Saturday. I think the Hateful 8 have it right when they say if these conferences want to go bigger the next step is leaving behind smaller members. But that’s moot because there’s no conference that can threaten the B1G and there’s no world where the B1G schools choose to tie their collegiate/education brands to schools like Oklahoma, Alabama, or LSU. The thought of Michigan, OSU, PSU, or Wisky ditching their B1G colleagues to make more total money but have less of a comparative advantage while elevating the Southern schools is so hilariously off base the superleague crap makes me die laughing. Yeah, like Michigan wants to fight for a level football playing field with Alabama or LSU in the same conference given the massive recruiting advantages Alabama/LSU has over them, ignoring the vast differences in priorities between the schools.
This sounds more combative that I mean to be it’s just that if you’re Michigan or OSU there’s 0 reason to expand further. USC/UCLA are super accretive to payouts, academic rankings, solve their own travel problems as a pair, and keep ahead of the SEC adding OUT. It gives the B1G 4 blue bloods in football and ensures a 5th (ND) will prefer them if they ever join a conference. It adds a basketball Blueblood in UCLA. It relegates the PaC to second class status and ensures you can always snag their schools if you want later. You do diligence now and “consider” schools like Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon so you don’t offend them. There’s no reason to take them though.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten has to expand right now, and it likely won’t because the $ doesn’t work.
But when ACC schools are available, I do think expansion will make sense again.
LikeLike
The endpoint might be 32 (=NFL). The important point is to be a true national conference. The synergies take over, and all these marginal analyses of whether Washington is additive or dilutive are asinine. They miss the point. You’re not doing something on the margin (Do you want fries with that?), you are changing the game The NFL grew from a few east coast and midwest teams to a national juggernaut. People are still trying to break in, viz USFL, XFL..
Let the SEC own the Confederacy. Whatever happened to them anyway? Build a real national conference, and they will come, even ND.
You’re thinking too damn small. Design me a 32 team league. Go wild!
LikeLike
Bob: “Design me a 32 team league. Go wild!”
Big Ten 16 + SEC 16 = 32
LikeLike
It’s just essentially the biggest/closest CFB team to the NFL team right? The NFL has already done all the research and what not about optimal market placement so just copy their homework and change a few things:
Arizona Cardinals = ASU Sun Devils
Atlanta Falcons = Georgia Bulldogs
Baltimore Ravens = Maryland Terrapins
Buffalo Bills = Syracuse Orange
Carolina Panthers = UNC Tar Heels
Chicago Bears = Illinois Fighting Illini
Cleveland Browns = Ohio State Buckeyes
Dallas Cowboys = Texas Longhorns
Denver Broncos = Colorado Buffaloes
Detroit Lions = Michigan Wolverines
Green Bay Packers = Wisconsin Badgers
Houston Texans = Texas A&M
Indianapolis Colts = Notre Dame
Jacksonville Jaguars = FSU Seminoles
Kansas City Chiefs = Oklahoma Sooners
Los Angeles Chargers = USC Trojans
Los Angeles Rams = UCLA Bruins
Miami Dolphins = Miami Hurricanes
Minnesota Vikings = Minnesota Golden Gophers
New England Patriots = Boston College Eagles
New Orleans Saints = LSU Tigers
New York Giants = Rutgers Knights
Philadelphia Eagles = PSU Nittany Lions
Pittsburgh Steelers = Pitt Panthers
San Francisco 49ers = Stanford Cardinal
Seattle Seahawks = Washington Huskies
Tampa Bay Buccaneers = Florida Gators
Tennessee Titans = Tennessee Volunteers
And then you have 4 NFL teams left that don’t have a P5 CFB pairing:
Cincinnati Bengals
Las Vegas Raiders
New York Jets
Washington Commanders
So you can swap them with Alabama, Oregon, Nebraska, and Michigan State. Maybe you swap Cal for Stanford or Arizona for ASU.
GT, Arizona, Cal, Clemson, UVA, Duke, Utah, Baylor, OKie St, Iowa, NC State, Arkansas, Kentucky, Auburn, South Carolina, NCState, Kansas, KSU, Mizzou, and the Mississippi schools are all left out.
But this makes ZERO sense for college sports and who wants to watch crappy NFL lite?
LikeLike
OSU is closer to Cincinnati than Cleveland.
LikeLike
And the Jets and Giants share Rutgers. They play in the same stadium and both training camps are within 30 miles of RU campus. In fact, Jets may be about 15 miles away.
Not that I think that the analysis is relevant to any college football plans or realignment.
LikeLike
PS. You’re NOT marketing the B1G plus one more school. You are marketing a whole set as a unit. What large set of schools has the best value. Focus on the whole set, not anyone school
LikeLike
No, focus on the value per school in the set. That is why dilutive additions don’t make sense. You need to show the compensatory new revenue source that makes everyone gain with the addition.
LikeLike
My view on expansion is that you add schools that will be good conference colleagues and in the long term improve the athletic/academic/financial status of the conference. While the immediate impact on the latest media deal should certainly be considered, it should not be the primary criterion for an invitation. When the opportunity to acquire a prize candidate arises, one should strike.
Of the “PAC4” Oregon, as a weaker version of Nebraska, is a definite no. Washington is a definite yes. Cal has many attractions, but its abysmal fan support and poor performance in the revenue sports render it as a shaky bet for the future. Stanford, with its superb overall athletic program, academics, location, and decent football resume is extremely attractive.
My preference is for the Big Ten to invite Washington and Stanford to the conference in time to begin play in 2024. I believe taking all four teams would be a significant mistake; not adding any is certainly a defensible position but in my opinion is less advantageous for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Canzano says the Pac-12 has fielded inquiries from more than a dozen schools eager to join, and more than 10 other universities have “back-channeled through lawyers and consultants.”
If I am reading correctly, that’s 22 schools that are interested. There must be a lot of Hail Mary passes among those 22, because I have trouble thinking of more than about six that would merit a serious look. Canzano suggests that San Diego State, Boise State, Fresno State, SMU and UNLV are the best candidates. San Diego State is the one candidate that just about every source agrees will get an invitation if anyone does.
But first, the Pac-12 needs to know that it is not losing any more schools. Canzano links to Brett McMurphy’s reporting that Oregon and Washington have spoken with the Big Ten. He has not independently confirmed it, but apparently considers the story believable.
LikeLike
Any AD in the MWC who isn’t contacting the Pac isn’t doing their job. Same for UTEP and NMSU. That’s 14 right there. And you figure Tulsa, SMU, Rice, UTSA and Texas St. would reach out. That gets you to 19.
LikeLike
Don’t forget my Green Wave.
Tulane would be a great fit in the PAC. Coastal location. Recruiting hotbed. International destination city. AAU institution. And little to no fan support.
LikeLike
Alan, you’re the best.
LikeLike
Yeah, quite a few of those are the Hail Mary passes I referred to. Your office flag football league is about as likely to get invited as New Mexico State.
LikeLike
https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottDochterman/status/1565503358525493248
Slow the expansion hype down folks: needs to be revenue additive.
From Iowa Prez and AD:
‘Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said it appears there is little interest in further expansion and there will be opposition if it means a revenue drop for membership.
“I feel like when we added the two that we added, it made sense. It had a lot of momentum behind it,” Barta said Thursday. “I’ve not yet heard anything that would get me at Iowa — I’m just speaking for Iowa — excited to say, ‘Let’s continue to expand more.’ So, I don’t feel like it’s a hot button. But that’s one person’s opinion. I won’t speak for the conference.
“Whatever upside Iowa will receive from the new TV contract, I’m certainly not going to be interested in supporting additional expansion, if that means Iowa would get less. That’s just one criteria, but that’s an important one.”
Iowa president Barbara Wilson, who previously served as executive vice president and interim chancellor at the University of Illinois, said the focus right now for the Big Ten’s Council of Presidents and Chancellors is how to acclimate USC and UCLA into the league. The league’s hierarchy met electronically Thursday morning in a previously planned meeting.
“I can’t really say anything about expansion, other than to say we’re really just trying to figure out what we’ve done and how to do this well with the two new schools,” Wilson told The Athletic. “Everybody’s talking about more and more, and I think what we’re focusing on is how do we manage bringing (in) these two partners in the next two years?
“It’s like taking a breath and saying, ‘OK, now, how do we make sure this is a successful expansion?’”’
LikeLike
Also, the Big Ten presidents are considering removing divisions for the championship game in 2023 while not changing the schedule (meaning the schedules created under the East/West divisions but taking the top 2 records for the CCG with some tiebreakers). Interesting to see what they’ll decide to do.
LikeLike
Good. No point waiting until 2024.
LikeLike
Some of the Eastern schools (PSU especially, though probably MSU and UMich too) really want to get rid of divisions.
Last chance for Even Year Northwestern to win another divisional title!e fo the om
LikeLike
Very funny that the previous time this rule change was proposed, Jim Delany led the charge to block it. I always believed this was done to screw the ACC, which he still hoped to poach, though of course he gave a seemingly neutral reason for doing so.
The change eliminates the possibility that a team could win the West with a 6-6 record, pull off the upset in the CCG, and be named Big Ten champ despite being unranked.
LikeLike
I do think Delany had a great deal of suspicion with regard to the ACC after its attempts to poach Penn State (and rumors of perhaps Northwestern).
The ACC was pushing deregulation alongside the Big 12 and so Delany wanted to know what kind of structures they were looking at…
But yeah Delany’s white whale was always UNC as much as ND.
If he’d stayed on, that likely would’ve still been a goal though financially these things are different now with the emphasis on Tier 1-2 rights.
LikeLike
Yep, I did have Iowa as anti-expansion in my run-down of B10 schools. And come to think of it, NU (wants more games with Iowa; also UMich/OSU/Wisconsin visits), PU (wants more UMich/OSU) and possibly UIUC (wants more UMich/OSU too as well as Iowa and Wisconsin) would also be conflicted, not strong pro-expansion.
That leaves only UNL who sees more of a plus from adding more CA schools.
And I forgot to mention that extra travel for non-revenue sports would be a minus too for all of the original 14. Right now, at most 1 trip to LA a year isn’t a big deal (especially since many teams already go on at least 1 far-away OOC trip already). But add more WC schools and long trips multiply.
So you really only have folks in the B10 conference office and maybe UNL for adding the West Coast 4 and everybody else against to some degree.
Also, UW-Seattle may be on the same tier as UW-Madison (in both football and academics), the Huskies just don’t draw as many TV viewers as the Badgers.
If the B10 will only add additive schools (or at least not dilutive schools), that drops the potential list down to ND, FSU, Clemson (if they keep being a natty contender and academics are seen as good enough), with Miami being borderline now.
For demographic reasons, the B10 likely would want to get in to FL. If the SEC takes FSU and Clemson, that leaves only ND + Miami.
Would be a coup if the B10 can add FSU + Miami and ND as an associate member (capturing ND’s surplus value).
And while schools like UIUC & NU almost certainly wouldn’t be willing to trade games with OSU/UMich/Iowa/Wisconsin for games with the WC4, they probably wouldn’t have so much of a problem trading them for games with ND, FSU, and Miami. Those are some heavyweight programs that they wouldn’t be able to land HaH’s with otherwise.
LikeLike
For what it worth, I would imagine that while UMD and RU have votes, no one much pays attention to any opinions. That said, they are both still in such financial holes that I would imagine they also would be strongly against dilution. Even a loss of $5 million per school to support expansion would be seriously felt by either of them for some years to come.
LikeLike
It is not just Rutgers and Maryland. I cannot think of a conference that has expanded to lose money for its members, nor even to stay flat.
LikeLike
And it has to be revenue additive if travel costs are going up…
14 ADs will be against expansion that isn’t financially accretive given that travel costs will increase from any expansion scenario involving the teams we’re discussing around here.
LikeLike
Barta’s comment is loose, back-door confirmation that some B1G sources are pushing additional expansion. It could be the Big Ten office or particular schools. Otherwise, there is no reason for him to say what he did.
LikeLike
I feel like the leaks about further expansion are coming from the Big Ten office (and are being directed to McMurphy).
Hard to see why the ADs would want to take less money. Even the Presidents are sensitive to that.
I agree Barta is making clear that he only speaks for Iowa, not the conference.
There’s a faction pushing for expansion but it may just be the commissioner’s office at this point.
Can’t imagine any ADs want a pay cut…
Maybe some presidents are enamored with Stanford/Cal, but the $ have to work or they’ll have problems with their ADs.
LikeLike
I’m sure some/all of the B10 office favor expansion. Maybe some schools too even if the per capita stays flat (I listed reasons for some to favor expansion though all but UNL also have reasons not to want expansion). And, yes, some of the B10 presidents may like to associate with Cal/Stanford if the money works. Most ADs probably much less enamoured.
LikeLike
So as I’ve been stating for a while, the only potential candidates on the B10 list are ND, FSU, possibly Miami, (and Clemson if acceptable, which they probably wouldn’t be).
So if the SEC takes FSU and Clemson and ND still wants to maintain the fiction of “independence”, would the B10 not expand? The B10 still might if it isn’t dilutive for demographic reasons. Adding ND as an associate member (playing 8 B10 teams, though in this scenario, the B10 doesn’t have Stanford; though I suppose the Domers could start an annual series with UCLA instead) would pay for GTech/UVa to add along with Miami. And demographic reasons might be compelling enough for the B10 to pull that trigger.
LikeLike
The Domers use to also alternate ending the season with USC with ending the season in Miami, so in this scenario (where Miami and GTech/UVa are added), ND could play USC and Miami annually, play “traditional rivals” UMich, MSU, PSU, and GTech half the time, with the other 4 games vs the other 12 B10 teams. Outside of 2-3 games from around NC/VA shifting to the Midwest, the Domer’s national coverage would stay about the same.
LikeLike
Stanford being added with ND makes too much sense not to happen imo.
Let’s just say the SEC gets FSU, Clemson, UNC + 1 in a move to 20.
If the SEC’s +1 is Duke or NC State, then the Big Ten should just grab Miami/UVA to 18. Maybe consider Washington/Oregon again for 20 but not essential.
If the SEC’s +1 is UVA, then the Big Ten can grab Miami/Washington to go to 18.
I feel like Miami is additive in any context: region of 9-10 million (Ohio or Michigan sized), most talent-rich region of the country for recruiting of athletes/students, glamour school/market; I made the point above, but when Miami’s rolling, they’re a top draw in the sport. If Cristobal can get them back to that level, we should see that come through in ratings.
I’m more certain on Miami than Clemson. Clemson’s the harder one to gauge; Dabo’s only 52, he could be there another 10+ years easily and keep building on what that school has become.
At the very least, if the next round of expansion is announced in 2031-2032, then we’ll get 10 more years of data.
It just feels like it’d be a huge mistake to me if the Big Ten doesn’t take Miami if available (especially since we all think the SEC is likely to invite FSU).
FSU and Miami are the 2 most “can’t miss” schools in all of this I think because they’re the two that I feel certain will be able to win national championships whether 10 or 20 or 40 years from now. Can’t say that about anybody else available.
LikeLike
Oh right, Miami+Stanford (and scheduling alliance with ND) is a possibility.
LikeLike
Yeah that works too, I think the Big Ten is almost certain to expand in the 2030s unless FSU, Miami, Clemson, and UNC aren’t available. (I know we disagree on UNC’s value but I think UNC+UVa is a more valuable duo than any remaining Pac-12 duo because of demographics/location in my mind).
Hard to justify expansion if you aren’t getting a new region and a school that matters nationally in that region.
I don’t see how you move to 18 with just Washington/Oregon or Washington/Stanford in 2030s if you aren’t willing to add them right now in a move to 18.
They aren’t financially additive right now, and that won’t change in the 2030s unless Oregon wins a bunch of national championships or something like that.
The value of FSU and Miami will be there regardless of what happens the next 10 years (though we’ll be watching the ACC/Pac-12 schools’ performances closely).
Florida, Texas, and California (South) will be the most valuable 3 states in demographics terms for a long time to come. 7 schools matter in those territories: UF, FSU, Miami, Texas, Texas A&M, USC, UCLA.
The Big Ten has the 2 in California, the SEC has the 2 in Texas. SEC currently has a 3rd in Florida with 2 in the ACC. It’s pretty clear to me that FSU and Miami will be the 2 most important schools in the 2030s.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has been focused on long-term trends, and less on the recent results with a particular coach. This makes sense, because coaches leave, but expansion is forever. With that in mind, I do not see the Big Ten coveting Clemson, even if Dabo wins the next ten national championships.
With Miami, it is somewhat the opposite story. With the recruiting territory they sit on, they should be better than they have been over the last 20 years. But even if they do not improve at all, Miami still makes sense.
Rutgers is a good analogy: if the addition had depended on them continuing to win as they did in Schiano’s first stint, it would have been a terrible idea. But it did not depend on that.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s also why I’m very high on UNC as compared to all the other schools outside of FSU/Miami in this discussion. It’s like the East Coast version of UCLA: great athletics brand because of everything else but decent at football. Recruits at a very high level for football because of the athletics brand + location.
UNC’s location and athletics brand should mean that they have the most upside of the batch of schools like Washington/UVa and the rest.
Clemson and Oregon have certainly outperformed UNC in the past 20-25 years, and NC is a much more divided state in terms of affiliations with 6 teams at the FBS level and 4 in the ACC. Those are issues for why UNC is on the UCLA/Maryland tier of expansion and not the USC, FSU, Miami kind of tier.
I don’t see how the Big Ten doesn’t give invites to FSU and Miami in the early 2030s though; those 2 are the most obvious other than ND.
Clemson just doesn’t seem like a fit at all for the Big Ten regardless of athletic success, but if the SEC doesn’t want them for some reason… the Big Ten has to at least consider it right?
I feel like it’s easy assume the SEC will invite Clemson, but if they don’t that’d be an interesting turn…
LikeLike
Actually, after his first few seasons of cleaning up a mess, Schiano’s teams went to bowls pretty much every year. It was the coaches who replaced Schiano who destroyed the foundation that he was building.
That is why the fan base hugely supported Schiano’s return.
LikeLike
Actually, after his first few seasons of cleaning up a mess, Schiano’s teams went to bowls pretty much every year. It was the coaches who replaced Schiano who destroyed the foundation that he was building.
I think you will find that when a talented coach cleans up a perennial doormat program, that coach typically leaves, and his successors are not able to keep it up at the same level — precisely as happened here. It is not just a Rutgers phenomenon.
The difference is that Schiano came back, which does not usually happen. Now we will see if he can do it a second time. It is hard to make exact comparisons, because he isn’t in the Big East anymore.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think you will find that when a talented coach cleans up a perennial doormat program, that coach typically leaves, and his successors are not able to keep it up at the same level — precisely as happened here. It is not just a Rutgers phenomenon.”
There was a lot more going on in the Rutgers Athletic Dept at that time. AD Tim Pernetti was fired for absurd reasons and replaced with openly lesbian Julie Herrmann during a takeover of the BOT by openly lesbian alumnus Kate Sweeney. Men’s basketball coach also fired. Herrmann’s short tenure was a train wreck.
LikeLike
Those things all happened, for sure. But college sports programs tend to revert to their historical mean. Thus, you could have confidently predicted that Schiano’s record was probably not a new normal for Rutgers, even if the rest had not occurred.
I hope you are not suggesting that people are incompetent because they are lesbians. What relevance does that have?
LikeLike
Marc: “I hope you are not suggesting that people are incompetent because they are lesbians. What relevance does that have?”
No, that’s not the issue at all. You need to understand how this whole thing transpired. Circa 2011, some Rutgers basketball players complained to AD Pernetti about physical and verbal abuse from HC Mike Rice. It was all recorded on video. The physical abuse was occasionally throwing a basketball at their legs in practice and the verbal abuse was calling them “homophobic slurs”.
Pernetti took the videos to the university president and told him that he felt Rice should be fined, temporarily suspended and counseled. The president agreed without viewing the videos, and that’s what happened.
When Kate Sweeney learned of this, she went hysterical. She felt Rice should be fired for using homophobic slurs and she also demanded that Pernetti also be fired for failure to fire Rice – even though the university president had concurred with the punishment.
And that’s what happened. Both Rice and Pernetti were fired and Sweeney chaired the search committee for the new AD. A couple of guys who interviewed for the job later asked that their names be withdrawn after the interview because “It was obvious they were going to hire a woman.”
LikeLike
Marc, you have no idea what happened at Rutgers. If anything Colin is understating the fiasco with the hiring of Julie Hermann. She was arguably the worst AD of any P6 team in the country.
The prior AD, Mike Rice, was doing a perfectly good job and he was ditched specifically to hire Hermann. Rice did absolutely nothing wrong, but firing him opened up a job. It was openly stated in NJ newspapers that her Hermann’s prime qualification was that she was a lesbian assistant AD at Louisville. The statements in the NJ papers came from Kate Sweeney who pushed the hiring.
Kate Sweeney was on the Board at Rutgers and demanded that a lesbian be hired to replace Mike Rice. It was a total disaster by all accounts.
Hermann was hired because she was a lesbian, but she was fired for being a total incompetent. Her sexual preferences were totally irrelevant to her dismissal.
LikeLike
Bernie, you have confused AD Tim Pernetti with hoops coach Mike Rice. Pernetti was the AD, and he was also a former Rutgers tight end, the AD who hired Schiano and the AD who engineered getting Rutgers from the Big East to the Big Ten. Truly heroic stature on the Rutgers campus
Rice was the hoops coach who called his players (gasp) homophobic slurs during practice.
LikeLike
Colin, absolutely correct. Flip flopped the two names.
Rice got into trouble and Pernetti was punished for it to make room for Julie Hermann.
LikeLike
“The 11 presidents and chancellors who comprise the CFP’s Board of Managers approved the original 12-team model, which is the six highest-ranked conference champions, and six at-large teams.”
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34509443/board-managers-decide-12-team-college-football-playoff-sources-say
I hope the hurt feelings commissioners of the “Alliance” are happy now. They may have screwed CFB out of half a billion dollars with there little temper tantrum last year that resulted in no change from the original recommendation. Hopefully, it can get worked out for 2024, if not 2026
LikeLike
Alan- Do you think NBC, CBS and Fox would have had as much interest in the Big Ten if ESPN completely owned the playoff? Furthermore, would the Big Ten have been wise to move to the broadcast networks and completely away from ESPN if they still completely owned the post season? Doubtful. Wise move by the B1G. Not sure about the other 2. My guess is you will see an expanded playoff in 2024.
LikeLike
Kevin – Apples and Oranges.
The presidents and chancellors approved the format recommended by the working group and told the commissioners to work out the details (on campus in cold weather, Rose Bowl, opening round TV coverage). The commissioners could have taken the same action months ago and spent the last several months working out the details that the Ps & Cs are now telling them to work out immediately, if not sooner.
FOX, CBS & NBC can bid for the new package. For all we know, ESPN may have been willing to cut them in on the opening round for 24 & 25. I have not heard or read anything to suggest that Disney was the holdup.
LikeLike
Alan: ” . . .the CFP’s Board of Managers approved the original 12-team model, which is the six highest-ranked conference champions, and six at-large teams.”
After all of the realignment chatter on this forum, this now makes staying in the PAC, ACC or Big XII one heck of a lot more appealing to schools like FSU, Clemson, Oregon, Utah, OK State or BYU.
LikeLike
Don’t see why that’ll be the case, a lot more exposure/money in the Big Ten and SEC.
In the long run, that will make a difference. Yes schools like Oregon and FSU will find there way to plenty of CFPs in the next 14 years, but that won’t necessarily make it more likely that they won’t want to leave.
The real issue is when the conferences/schools start to pay players. If SEC and Big Ten are paying double what ACC is distributing to players, how long is that competitive difference sustainable?
And if players view it as if they have to play in those 2 conferences to get national exposure that will matter.
LikeLike
If I’m the commissioner of the ACC/B12/PAC, I sweeten the deal for the big dogs to stay by giving them a disproportionate share to playoff participants – like half.
LikeLike
Bill Walsh returned to Stanford, but Walsh II was not a successful regime.
As for the new playoff, this should put the freeze on realignment. If the Pac and Big-12 are guaranteed playoff spots, they have no need to consider expansion, which for the Pac can only be dilutive. Pac also has no need to mess with a “partnership” with the ACC.
Depending on how conference champions are determined, it may also encourage tougher scheduling. For example, it is in Stanford’s financial and recruiting interests to continue to play ND every year, and to play one of USC/UCLA every year. But if conference tiebreakers come down to OOC games, that would be a disincentive.
UCLA should have an incentive to play Stanford (or Cal) on Thanksgiving weekend when USC is hosting ND. But I am not sure if USC will still want to play Stanford early in the season.
LikeLike
If the six top-ranked conference champs get into the playoff, seems like ND should join the MAC.
LikeLike
Alan, the issue was always TV rights and Big Ten suspicions that ESPN would negotiate a lengthy extension to its complete control package.
Now that’s out the window I would think and that aspect of things will likely look different.
They’re being ordered to come up with a solution for 2026 (i.e. when the new tv is to start) and then potentially backdate the solution to 2024.
That’s a key difference from the original working group situation which would have extended the CFP and allowed an exclusive negotiating window with ESPN regarding the extension.
My assumption (which could be wrong) is that ESPN would have been able to control the CFP until the mid-2030s if the original proposal had not been vetoed.
That more than any other reason is why the Big Ten voted no.
As for the ACC and Pac-12, yes they look foolish but they’ve done a lot of foolish things in the past.
LikeLike
z33k – I have never read anything to indicate that Disney held up the deal in order to beat a lengthy extension out of the CFP. Just internet speculation. You are assuming that the Ps & Cs approved something less detailed than what the commissioners failed to ratify previously.
As I recall, the B1G’s party line for opposition for expansion was auto qualifiers for P5 champs and the Rose Bowl situation, not shilling for their TV business partner FOX.
If worrying about Disney controlling T V was really the unstated issue, then the B1G commish would have breached his fiduciary duty to his members in favor of his TV partner.
LikeLike
Alan – the commish made his members more money with the new TV deal. The playoff money has to be distributed amongst a much wider group.
LikeLike
Kevin – are you suggesting that the only way USC & UCLA join the B1G is by misrepresentation on the B1G’s position regarding playoff expansion? Or are you suggesting that the B1G materially mislead NBC, CBS and FOX?
I don’t think anything nearly that sinister happened and I think the B1G would have received the same TV deal regardless of their previous stance on a new playoff format.
I believe the “Alliance” took UTx & OU to the SEC news personally and tried to kill the 12-team playoff because it was viewed as Sankey’s idea. In doing so, they may have cost FBS schools a half a billion dollars.
I hope things can get worked out in time for 2024.
LikeLike
Actually, OK and UT, was a back stabbing underhanded move by Sankey.
There were any number of articles indicating that negotiations broke off due to a lack of trust in Sankey.
Do not respond that any league would have taken UT/OK, as that is not relevant. Had Sankey announced it once it was completed, certainly at least a week or two earlier, the deal might have been worked out.
Attempting to reach a new deal to extend the playoffs while withholding a material fact is not very ethical.
LikeLike
Bernie – Sankey and the SEC didn’t announce anything because the UTX/OU deal to the SEC was not a done deal. The Aggies leak the story with the hopes of blowing up the deal. After the story was leaked, that sped up the process.
When negotiating a big deal for a client, typically the parties execute a nondisclosure agreement. I would think something like conference realignment is similar.
Regardless, Sankey has been vindicated by the Ps & Cs as his working group’s was adopted today. It made just as much sense last Summer as it did today.
LikeLike
I think it was just the egos of the 3 new commissioners. They didn’t “own” it so they were going to blow it up. It was a childish temper tantrum. OU/UT was just another trigger. Hopefully it will still get done for 2024, now that the 3 commissioners have been “reprimanded.”
LikeLike
If worrying about Disney controlling T V was really the unstated issue, then the B1G commish would have breached his fiduciary duty to his members in favor of his TV partner.
Well, that depends. If ESPN was willing to do a deal for a 12 team playoff just until the original 4 team playoff deal expired, then you could make that case.
If, on the other hand, the Big Ten felt that ESPN would require an extension as a condition of any playoff expansion, then they certainly had a strong case for not expanding. Agreeing to extend long term deal just to get some extra money now is a huge reason the ACC is stuck with such an undervalued contract for another dozen years.
LikeLike
Alan, it’s as frug said below:
When has ESPN not required an extension as part of a renegotiation of rights?
LikeLike
z33k – I would guess when ESPN stand to make barrels of more money running beer and truck commercials without having to spend any time and money building a network from scratch and strong-arming cable companies to carry the channels.
The ACCN and the SECN extensions having NOTHING to do with playoff expansion. ESPN would have stood to be the biggest beneficiary of playoff expansion, even if only for the remainder of the current contract, AND even if they farmed out opening round games to FOX, CBS & NBC, because ESPN has the NY6 tied up for two more years.
IF ESPN was trying to shake down the CFP for a long-term extension as so many here speculate, then the commissioners should have made a motion to approve the plan as submitted by the working group with the caveat that there would be no ESPN extension, and make ESPN vote against the plan. Then ESPN would be exposed as the bad guy. That didn’t happen because ESPN wasn’t the bad guy. The Alliance commissioners were. They were disingenuous about the reasons for voting against the plan. It was based on UTx and OU to the SEC news that got leaked by the Aggies. But for the Aggie leak to the Houston Chronicle, we would have heard about the deal this summer, most likely. Now, the B1G doesn’t care since they have two new shiny toys in USC & UCLA, and the ACC/PAC need the cheese.
LikeLike
@Alan
Then why was this announcement specifically for the next contract from 2026 and beyond?
They’re going to sort out the future of the CFP for 2026 and beyond and then try to apply it to 2024-2025.
This is a very different outcome than what was being proposed earlier this year which was a direct expansion of the playoff first and then negotiation with ESPN (the exclusive rights holder to 3 years of that expanded playoff).
ESPN plays hardball with everyone; it’s why they were able to lock the ACC into a terrible deal for so long; the ACC has been trying to get out from under the Raycom mess and ESPN took them as long as they could.
There is no way that ESPN would have willingly just expanded the bracket for 2023-2025 without negotiating a couple extra years into that deal.
Without any assurance, why would the Big Ten support that.
LikeLike